IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35655 of 2009 KAUSHAR ALI S/O- GAFFAR VILL- LAL PARSA, PARSA, P.S- SIKTA, DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN … Petitioner. Versus . THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 18.12.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner facing prosecution for offence under Sections 452,376/511 of the Indian Penal Code has his defence at least for the purposes of bail that he has been falsely implicated in this case which could be borne out from the fact that the complainant alleged victim is aged about 30 years and therefore the petitioner could not have made an attempt to outrage the modesty of old lady. Counsel for the petitioner has also stressed that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and in fact the petitioner appears to have been also framed in this case on account of village politics and old rivalry and in this context has placed reliance on a complaint case filed by the petitioner wherein the prosecution party had been made accused for assaulting him. In the opinion of this court, the court below has itself considered all these 2 aspects in a graphic manner leaving nothing more for this court but to concur with the findings and reasonings given by the court below. Infact the recovery of the chappal of the petitioner which was seized by the police from the place of occurrence and some sort of injury found on the person of the petitioner who is said to have made an attempt to run away after his being caught red handed at the spot are by themself sufficient to suggest the correctness of the occurrence as alleged by the victim lady. As a matter of fact, if the petitioner has his defence that he would not have gone to outrage the modesty of 30 years old married lady, the prosecution version can also not be rejected because no married lady unless provoked would come out to even allege something about her own personal physical assault. This court therefore is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present till he would complete judicial custody for a period of one year. The petitioner is in custody since 27.8.2009 and therefore he may renew his prayer for bail after 27.8.2010 and that too in case his 3 trial itself is not taken up in the meantime and concluded. The trial court should infact make its endeavour to conclude the trial in the aforesaid period of one year. With the aforesaid observation and direction this application is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)