IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.9526 of 2010 MD. REYAJ @ CHAND, son of Md. Saraj Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 11.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant stated in the First Information Report that his daughter and wife informed him that the petitioner committed rape with the victim girl. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of occurrence is 27.12.2009 and on information given by his wife the informant comes on the next day. However, in the F.I.R. he has given the date of lodging the written report as 27.12.2009 which would show manipulation. He further submits that without seeing the occurrence himself, informant presumes the manner in which accused would have entered the house. Learned counsel further submits that the medical report does not give any opinion whether there was any recent sexual intercourse or not. Counsel for the State submits that the victim girl informed her mother and father that the petitioner had committed rape on her. It would appear from the medical report itself that the hymen of the victim girl is ruptured. The First Information Report discloses the allegation of rape against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is - 2 - rejected. However, if petitioner surrenders before the court below (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in connection with Roh P.S. case no. 01 of 2010) within six weeks from today, the same would be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)