IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22408 of 2010 RAJENDRA PRASAD SINHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 21.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner being the nephew of the complainant is apprehending his arrest in Complaint Case no. 1399 of 2009 in which cognizance has been taken under sections 392, 342, 379 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged against the petitioner that he committed offence under section 376 IPC upon the daughter of the complainant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both sides are agnates and the case has been lodged by the petitioner’s side prior to the present case in which son of the complainant and her husband were accused hence as retaliatory measure the present case has been lodged by filing complaint petition without bringing on record any medical report. Moreover other similarly situated co- accused Krishna Prasad has been granted anticipatory bail vide Cr. Misc. no.12521 of 2010 disposed of on 12.05.2010. In view of the allegation for the offence under section 376 IPC, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is dismissed. However, keeping in view the facts that both sides are agnates, case lodged by the petitioner’s side is prior in time and other accused has been granted anticipatory bail, I think it is a good ground - 2 - for regular bail. Let the learned court below consider regular bail of the petitioner in view of the observations made above and may dispose off regular bail application of the petitioner, if possible, on the same day. shahid (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)