Md. Rahim @ Bablu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27048 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -34 Year- 2018 Thana -RAUTA District- PURNIA ====================================================== Md. Rahim @ Bablu, S/o Seful Rahaman @ Saifurahaman, R/o Panki, Kanfuliya, P.S.-Rauta, District-Purnea.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Advocate. For the informant : Ms. Kumari Ritambhara, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajballabh Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Rauta P.S. Case No. 34 of 2018 instituted for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 354, 376 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this case has been filed after delay of four days. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that there is specific allegation against this petitioner of committing rape with the informant. The independent witnesses have supported the allegation against this petitioner. The Medical report is available in the case diary wherein the Doctor has stated that possibility of rape could not be

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27048 of 2018 (5) dt.19-06-2018 2/2 ruled out.

In the written report there is specific allegation against this petitioner of committing rape with the informant. It is further alleged that Panchayti was also held but the informant did not abide by the verdict of the Panchayat. Thereafter, the instant case has been filed and delay has occurred.

The learned A.P.P. after looking into the case diary has submitted that in the Medical Report the Doctor has stated that possibility of rape could not be ruled out.

Therefore, in aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

Petitioner may surrender before the court below and make prayer for regular bail.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T