IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.23937 OF 2000 1. RAJENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE KALIKA PRASAD, FARM MANAGER, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAKHNAHIA, POLICE STATION SANDHOLI, DISTRICT ROHTAS 2. SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA @ DABLU, SON OF RAJENDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAKHNAHIA, POLICE STATION SANDHOLI, DISTRICT ROHTAS ………………………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHANICHARA DEVI, WIFE OF GANESH RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAKHNAHIA, POLICE STATION SANDHOLI, DISTRICT ROHTAS …………………………………………………………………..……OPPOSITE PARTIES *********** 7 14/01/2011 Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order by which the Court has rejected the discharge application has been passed without considering the evidence that has come on record. The prosecution case is that while the victim lady was in her house, three persons came and took her to the field and they have said to have molested the lady concerned. After sometime, she returned back to her house and lodged First Information Report. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 27.09.1995. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire case is false, fabricated and the names of the petitioners have been dragged in this case due to enmity, which would be apparent on perusal of the case diary. The husband of the victim lady has stated that he had filed a case before the Labour Court demanding wages from the Agricultural Farm Manager and in order to take 2 revenge, the petitioners are said to have committed the said acts. The labourers etc. have stated that they came to know that some criminals had entered into the house and had taken the lady of the house away, who returned after sometime. None of them spoke about the rape of the victim lady. It is further submitted that the medical report does not support the allegation and finally, the genesis of the said occurrence i.e. the dispute with respect to the wages had been settled by the Labour Court, wherein the claim of the informant’s husband was rejected. It is, therefore, submitted that there was no occasion in fact for these petitioners to act in the manner alleged. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire facts lead to the conclusion that the names of the father and son have been deliberately dragged into this case. I find some substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners, however, these aspects cannot be considered at this stage. Undoubtedly, the Court below will consider them during the trial of the case and pass orders in accordance with law. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )