IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41221 of 2009 MD.PERWEZ @ MD.PERWEZ ALAM, SON OF MD. ISHLAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MOTIJHEEL, P.S. MEHSI, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN……PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR…………………OPPOSITE PARTY. ------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, A.P.P. For the informant : Mr. Harendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. ------------ 6. 8.3.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the informant. Perused the report of the court concerned, which has been called for pursuant to the order dated 8.1.2010. It appears therefrom that charge sheet has been submitted against the three accused persons including the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody whereas two others are absconders. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 366(A)/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. As per the allegation, set up in the First Information Report, the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons - 2 - allured and kidnapped the minor daughter, aged about 13 years, of the informant for the purposes of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the girl had gone at her own will and there is contradiction in the statement of the victim girl recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is contended that actually there was love affair with another co-accused, namely, Jahid Ali @ Pappu, however, subsequently, under the pressure the victim girl had made certain statement against the petitioner under Section 164 Cr.P.C. making allegation against the accused persons including the petitioner. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner had surrendered on 29.7.2009. Learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the petitioner and others had allured the minor girl and, as would be evident from the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the prayer of bail of the petitioner, that they had forced her and raped her on several occasions. It has been stated by none else but the minor girl herself in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the - 3 - medical report also supports that the victim girl was below than 15 years and she has already given a graphic account of her sufferings in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation and the statement of the victim girl, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., clearly stating therein that the petitioner and other co-accused persons had also raped her, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. As a result, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected at this stage. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)