IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.4498 of 2010 PRAMOD SAH, Son of Sri Ram Bilas Sah Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 02.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 363, 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, Anita Kumari, stated that she is 15 years of age. She further stated that Md. Sabbir and this petitioner forcibly at the point of knife made her to sit on their motorcycle and took her to unknown place. In the mean time, one Arun Kumar Gupta also joined. The informant alleged that all the accused persons committed rape on her and thereafter on the next date also they committed rape and on 26.03.2008 they left her near Dubba river. The informant came walking to Sheohar, where she narrated the entire incident. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the victim / informant had also filed a case on 28.12.2008 alleging that one Ram Chandra Sah has kept her daughter for 8 months and when she tried to take back her daughter the accused persons assaulted her. As she had filed Sheohar P.S. case no. 162 of 2008 under Sections 341, 323, 354, 342, 504/34 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel referring to medical report (Annexure-3) submits that the doctor has stated that it is very difficult to say that whether rape has been committed or not. Learned counsel submits that the doctor has found that hymen was ruptured and thus, the learned counsel submits that informant is a habituated to sexual inter course. Learned counsel further submits that one co-accused Arun - 2 - Kumar Gupta had filed Anticipatory Bail application before this Hon,ble Court, however, in the meantime he was arrested. Thereafter the said petitioner has been granted regular bail by order dated 09.01.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. N. 40223 of 2008. He further submits that the petitioner has been implicated at the instance of Ramchandra Sah, who in fact wanted to purchase a piece of land, which was purchased by his uncle Ajay Kumar Gupta, in which the petitioner is an identifier. Counsel for the State submits that the victim girl in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case and in the F.I.R. it is alleged that the accused/petitioner committed rape. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the girl in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has corroborated her prosecution version of commission of rape. I further find that the Sessions Judge in paragraph 5 has noted the submission of the learned P.P. that as medical examination was conducted after two days of the occurrence, no spermatozoa would survive. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. However, if petitioner surrenders before the court below within six weeks from today and seeks regular bail, same would be disposed of also taking into consideration that co-accused has been granted regular bail. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)