IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26116 of 2008 PRADEEP YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 22.10.2008 This is a case of gang rape, in which the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 457, 376 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(XI) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against the petitioner and two others. The informant, Anjana Kumari alleged that in the night of 19.4.2007 at 10 o’clock while she was in her house, she saw that the petitioner and two other accused, namely, Prakash Yadav and Bablu Yadav entered into the courtyard of her house. Seeing them in the house, she (informant) and her younger sister Amita Kumari got frightened. Amita Kuamri fled away from the house but she (informant) was captured by the petitioner and other accused persons and she was dragged out of the house towards South near bank of river where the accused persons put off her Salwar and they committed rape on her and they left the victim with this threatening that if any case is lodged whole family will be finished. The informant also alleged that in the ensuing morning she disclosed the occurrence to her mother and brother Shyamal Kishore Ram and went to the father of accused Bablu Yadav but he also beat them and drove them away and then she came to police station and lodged the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is also submitted that the main allegation is against accused Bablu Yadav and the informant and family members of the victim had also gone to father of Bablu Yadav for complaining about the incident. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the doctor in the medical examination report has not found any mark of violence on the victim and hymen was - 2 - found old rupture and on examination of viginal swale no spermatozoa was found. Mr. N. K Prasad, the learned A.P.P. submits that the medical examination was done after 48 hours and he also submits that the victim was a married girl who was living at her mother’s house at the of occurrence. The learned A.P.P. continues to submit that there is categorical allegation on the petitioner and other accused that they had dragged the victim informant out of her house and taken her to the bank of river and had committed gang rape on her. The learned counsel also refers to the statement of Amita Kumari in para-41 of the case diary and points out that she has supported the allegation in the F.I.R. and she stated that she had saved herself from the criminals by escaping away from the house. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.4.2008. It is also submitted that co-accused Prakash Yadav whose case is similarly situated, has been allowed bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.11.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39595 of 2007. Be that as it may, but considering the allegation and the material against the petitioner, I do not feel inclined to allow bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is rejected. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-