IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28856 of 2009 PANCHO SHARMA @ RANCHU SHARMA, son of Pallu Sharma, resident of village Porla, P.S. Azamnagar, District Katihar Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 16.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State as also the informant. An allegation of attempting rape as has been alleged in the complaint cum F.I.R. in the version of the prosecutrix in normal course could have been good enough for rejection of the prayer for bail of the petitioner against whom there is specific allegation of making such an act. However such allegation does not inspire confidence only on account of gross delay of 35 days in filing of the complaint before the court, inasmuch as the offence is said to have been committed on 29.6.2008 and the complaint admittedly was filed before the court on 4.8.2008. Counsel for the informant even though being asked to produce the application allegedly given by the complainant cum informant to the Sarpanch of the Panchayat/ Panchayat on 1.7.2008 has 2 failed to produce any such application which could have explained the delay in lodging of the complaint. As a matter of fact even the police in course of investigation did not find any material that there was any petition filed by the informant before the Sarpanch or that any proceedings of the Panchayat had been held over the issue. It is these aspects of the matter which would weigh in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, this Court would direct for release of the abovenamed petitioner on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Azamnagar P.S.Case No. 191/2008 and one of such sureties will be either of his parents. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/