Hiran Prasad Thakur @ Hiran Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78389 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-384 Year-2017 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE DistrictKishanganj ====================================================== HIRAN PRASAD THAKUR @ HIRAN THAKUR, S/o Manik Chand Thakur @ Manika Chandra Thakur, R/o village Baniyadangi, Padampur, P.S. Dighalbank, Dist.-Kishanganj.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR

2. Ram Narayan Thakur S/o Late Dhutum Lal Thakur, R/o village- Baniyadangi, Padampur, P.S. Dighalbank, Dist.-Kishanganj. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar Mr. Rajeev Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 18-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence under sections 376 and 456 besides other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the Complaint, the petitioner is said to have committed rape on the mentally challenged minor daughter of the Complainant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations are false and concocted for the reason that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78389 of 2019(4) dt.18-02-2020 2/2 there is no reasonable explanation for the delay of more than one and half months since lodging of the Complaint. It is further submitted that another occurrence had taken place two days prior to this occurrence on 15.04.2017 for which the father of the petitioner had lodged Complaint on 09.06.2017. The application for bail has been opposed by learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the direct allegation against this petitioner in the Complaint of having committed rape on the mentally challenged minor daughter of the Complainant, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks.

(Partha Sarthy, J.) amit/- U T