IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43360 of 2010 BIPIN TURI @ BIPIN KUMAR TURI,SON OF LATE RAMDEO TURI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 26.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner prays for anticipatory bail in a complaint case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had committed rape upon the complainant while she was alone in her house and when she raised alarm, the villagers and her parents came there and the petitioner on seeing them fled away. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false story has been created by the complainant, as the father of the petitioner and the mother-in-law of the complainant had jointly purchased 16 decimals of land through registered sale deed dated 7.8.1979 from one Sheikh Ulfat Mian and the case has been instituted in order to grab the entire land by the father-in-law of the complainant. It is further urged by learned counsel that both the petitioner and the complainant reside in the houses, which are located in front of each other and it is - 2 - improbable that such offence would be committed by the petitioner. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant was not examined by any Doctor and thus there is no medical report to corroborate the allegation of rape. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the same is, accordingly, rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders and prays for bail then his application should be considered without being prejudiced by the factum of rejection of his prayer for anticipatory bail. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )