IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13002 of 2008 MD.HAIDER ALI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5 23/7/2008 Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court both the petitioner from the jail custody and the opposite party no.2 with her mother have appeared. Heard counsel for the petitioner, State and counsel for the opposite party no.2. This Court had also occasion to hear the views of opposite party no.2, the victim lady, and the petitioner-accused. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner and contrast defence by the counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact the victim lady was married to the petitioner and that she was being forcibly taken away from the custody of the petitioner, the husband, this Court had issued notice to the opposite party no.2 and also had sought her presence in order to ascertain the correct facts. What has been really stated by the opposite party no.2 before this Court would shock conscience of any person. She says that she was forcibly taken away against her wishes by the petitioner with four other persons and was subjected to physical and mental torture including continuous rape. She further submits that as a matter of fact after causing all sorts of physical and mental torture for a period of four months she was ultimately thrown away on a railway track. She 2 has claimed that she has both external and internal injuries on her person. She has also seriously contradicted the entire story of the petitioner suggesting that she had been married to the petitioner or that she wanted to live with the petitioner. This Court is however not recording any finding on the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the opposite party no.2 or the opposite party no.2 herself, because the trial is pending and such issue has to be gone into during trial. Considering the fact that here is a heinous offence which must be dealt firmly by the court below, this Court while rejecting prayer for bail of the petitioner would only direct that the trial court to take up the trial out of turn and would ensure that the trial itself is conducted on day to day basis and is concluded by delivering the judgment as early as possible but in no event later than a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar