IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27136 of 2009 MEERA DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.26793 of 2009 OM PRAKASH SINGH @ OM PRAKASH SONKAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.21616 of 2009 BIRENDRA MAHTO @ BIRENDRA KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ------- 2 17.08.2009 All these matters arise out of the same occurrence giving rise to Kargahar (Barhari) P.S.Case No.110 of 2008 instituted under diverse section of the Penal Code including section 366-A and 376 IPC. Allegation is that while the victim was coming home from market she was kidnapped at gun point by one Arun Tiwary and another. It is alleged that she was confined to a room where the petitioner Om Prakash Singh and Birendra Mahto are said to have committed rape on her. Next day she was shifted to another place where an attempt was made to sell her to some other accused persons. Mr. Alamdar Hussain appears in support of Cr.Misc.No.26793 of 2009, whereas Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Sr. counsel appears in support of Cr. Misc.No.27136. No body appears on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.Misc. No.26616 of 2009. 2 It appears from the record that the girl was produced before the court for her statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. She has specifically alleged that that the petitioner Birendra Mahto and Om Prakash Singh committed rape on her. Learned counsel submits that the medical report does not support the allegation. It is contended that as per the medical report, the age of the girl is between 18 to 19 years. This court finds from the impugned order that the trial court having regard to the materials produced before it, has taken a view that the girl was a minor. Mr. Choubey, learned Sr. counsel appearing in Cr.Misc.No.27136 of 2009, submits that only allegation against the petitioner Meera Devi is that she is Bhabhi of the co-accused Arun Tiwary and she was present in the house at the time of commission of rape upon the victim. It is contended that she is a lady and deserves special consideration in view of the provision of law as contained in section 437 of the Cr. P.C. Looking to the allegations and the materials collected in support thereof, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioners Om Prakash Singh @ Om Prakash Sonkar (Cr.Misc. No.26793 of 2009) and Birendra Mahto @ Birendra Kumar (Cr.Misc.No.21616 of 2009). Their prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected. So far as petitioner Meera Devi (Cr.Misc.No.27136 of 2009) is concerned, she is directed to be released on bail on 3 hr furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of CJM, Rohtas in connection with Kargahar (Barhari) P.S. Case No. 110 of 2008. This disposes of all the three bail applications. ( Kishore Kumar Mandal )