IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35706 of 2009 SIKANDAR YADAV @ SIKKO YADAV, s/o Sri Pulkit Yadav, r/o vill. Gaddi, P. S. Raghopur, Distt. Supaul ……… Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 28.10.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The three things would weigh heavily against the petitioner seeking bail for an offence under Section 366(A) of the IPC namely:- (i) the age of the girl which has been found to be by the medical board between 15 to 16 years and thus a minor and (ii) the other being the circumstance that the petitioner was already a married man before he had either enticed the victim girl, a minor or got married to her as claimed in her 164 Cr.P.C. Statement and (iii) the credibility of such 164 Cr.P.C. statement has already been found to be incorrect inasmuch as the victim 2 girl on her volition has been released for living with her parents. Taking the aforementioned facts and circumstances into consideration, this court is thus not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly his prayer for bail is hereby rejected with a direction to the trial court that the trial of the petitioner be expedited and concluded preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforementioned period of one year, the petitioner will have liberty to initially move before the trial court for bail and the trial court will be under obligation to record reasons for not concluding the trial within the aforementioned period. Only thereafter, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this court. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)