IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25218 of 2011 ====================================================== Premlal Yadav son of Sri Mantlal Yadav, resident of village- Jhalighat, P.S. Jankinagar, District- Purnia. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s For the petitioner: Mr. Kumar Pawan, Advocate For the Opposite Party: Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA) 3 30-08-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. This is second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for seeking anticipatory bail in a criminal prosecution in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. On previous occasion prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by this Court by an order dated 30.04.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12066 of 2010. The relevant portion of the order dated 30.04.2010 is reproduced herein below: “In a criminal prosecution for offences under sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, petitioner no.1 Premlal Yadav is alleged to have picked up the victim lady Rukmini Devi in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25218 of 2011 (3) dt.30-08-2011 2 his lap, took her inside the room, undressed her and attempted to commit rape upon her. Petitioner no.2 is alleged to have remained standing ouside, near „Darwaja‟. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.1 happens to be husband of the local Mukhiya and because of local politics, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Be that as it may, in view of serious nature of allegation against petitioner no.1 Premlal Yadav, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. He must surrender in the court below in connection with Complaint Case No. 1928 of 2009, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea within a period of four weeks from today and, if so advised, seek regular bail which shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly admitted that despite directions issued by this Court by aforesaid order dated 30.04.2010, the petitioner has not surrendered in the court below, but in the meantime the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the complainant. Therefore, in his submissions, the petitioner is entitled to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. In a case of the nature, in which there is serious allegation Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25218 of 2011 (3) dt.30-08-2011 3 against the petitioner, he being a resourceful person of the area, and the complainant being a poor person belonging to downtrodden society, this Court is of the considered opinion that compromise allegedly arrived at between the parties is not a ground for grant of anticipatory bail. However, if such a compromise has been arrived at, then such plea could have been taken for grant of regular bail, and the Learned Magistrate could have looked into the genuineness/ bonafides of the alleged compromise arrived at between the parties. For the reasons recorded above, prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 1928 of 2009, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea is rejected once again. Learned Magistrate shall take all possible coercive measures to get the petitioner produced in the court, so that he is brought to justice. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)