IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16860 of 2009 MD.SHABBIR @ MD.SHABBIR ALAM S/O MD. AMIRUDDIN, R/O VILL. SARSAULA, P.O. & P.S. & DIST.SHEOHAR. --- PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR --- OPP. PARTY. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate. For the State: Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, APP. 02. 04.05.2009 Heard both sides. The sole petitioner has approached this court seeking anticipatory bail in a case instituted under Sections 376/34 and 363 of the Penal Code. As per allegation in the F.I.R., the prosecutrix was going to meet her sister. On way she was forcibly picked up by the present petitioner and one Pramod Sah on a motorcycle by use of force and, thereafter, was taken towards nearby field wherefrom she was boarded on a maruti vehicle parked from before at the said place. The further prosecution case is that she was taken to nearby town Sitamarhi where she was raped by the present petitioner and other accused persons for two days and thereafter she was brought back to the same field on the same vehicle and left. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present allegation has been levelled by the prosecutrix at the instance of one Ram Chandra Sah, in whose house she was working as a maid servant. It is further contended that the two nephews of the aforesaid Ram Chandra Sah are witnesses cited in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to annexure-7 states that the mother of the prosecutrix, subsequently, (several months after 2 the present occurrence) lodged a case with the police vide Sheohar P.S. Case no. 162 of 2008 against the aforesaid Ram Chandra Sah. It is further contended that the mother of the prosecutrix also made an application before the Chief Minister of Bihar stating therein that her daughter, who was working in the house of aforesaid Ram Chandra Sah was used by him for lodging a false case against some of the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contents that the injury report does not support the prosecution case. This court after hearing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and after looking to the impugned order finds that the allegations levelled against the petitioner have been supported by the victim in her further statement recorded under Section 161Cr.P.C. The impugned order further reflects that in course of investigation other witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. Having regard to the materials available on record, this court is not satisfied that a case for extension of privilege of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the application seeking anticipatory bail stands rejected. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)