IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32723 of 2009 Nazir Ahmad, S/o Late Md. Jumrate, Resident of Mohalla Maripur, Baxi Colony, P.S. Qazimohammadpur, District Muzaffarpur. ---------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar -------- Opp. Party With Cr.Misc. No.8010 of 2009 1. Md. Nabi Hasan, S/o Late Md. Munif. 2. Md. Aiyaz, S/o Md. Nazir @ Khan 2 Khan Saheb. All resident of Village Patiasa, P.S. Ahiyapur, District Muzaffarpur. ----- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar --------- Opp. Party With Cr.Misc. No.8268 of 2009 Gopal Paswan, Son of late Bhupan Paswan, Resident of Village Mohanpur, P.S. Samastipur Muffasil, District Samastipur. -------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ----------- Opp. Party With Cr.Misc. No.8466 of 2009 Mubaraque Ali @ Mubarak Ali 2 Raju Mistry @ Raju, Son of Late Md. Abdulah, resident of Village Raghunathpur, Piparpatti, Police Station Raghunathpur, District Balia (U.P.), at present, Miscall Mohalla, Police Station and Distt. Motihari. ------ Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ------- Opp. Party With Cr.Misc. No.16615 of 2009 Dinanath Jaiswal, Son of Rajeshwar Jaiswal, Resident of Mohalla Nakhas, Police Station Hajipur (Town) in the district of Vaishali. ----- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ------- Opp. Party ------------ 2 18.9.2009 Heard counsel for petitioners and counsel for the State in all the aforementioned cases. 2 All the petitioners have been made accused in Samastipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 87 of 2008 registered for an offence under Section 363, 366(A)/120(B) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegation of kidnapping and rape is not at all substantiated and in fact it is the confessional statement of the co-accused which is the solitary material for their implication in this case. They have also referred to an order of this Court dated 12.1.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 40625 of 2008 granting bail to the co-accused Munshilal Rai. On the other hand, counsel for the State with reference to the material available in the Case Diary has submitted that a 12 years old girl was kidnapped by enticing her away for the treatment of her chronic skin disease. He has further referred to the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein she had categorically made allegation of rape, confinement and repeated physical torture against one Khan Saheb and Vinod. He has also 3 referred to paragraph nos. 47 & 57 of the Case Diary containing confessional statement of co- accused Nazir Ahmad @ Khan Sahib and co- accused Rupa Devi, wife of the petitioner Gopal Paswan wherein the role of these petitioners have been elaborately explained. After considering the materials on record, this Court would find that the minor girl, the victim was taken away forcibly by duping her parents from the bus-stand in the name of treatment of the victim girl for her disease and thereafter it is only when the confession of the co-accused Rupa Devi, wife of Gopal Paswan also a co-accused was recorded that the victim girl could be recovered by the police. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the co-accused Rupa Devi who happens to be none else but the wife of one of the co-accused Gopal Prasad. This Court therefore on considering the materials on record including 164 statement of the victim girl and the other materials in the Case Diary is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners specially when it would find that co-accused Munshilal Rai was granted bail 4 by this Court, primarily on the ground of his age and ailment and also by recording a finding that he did not appear to be involved either in kidnapping or committing rape of the victim minor girl. Accordingly the prayer for bail of the petitioners, namely, namely, Nazir Ahmad, Md. Nabi Hasan, Md. Aiyaz, Gopal Paswan, Mubaraque Ali @ Mubarak Ali @ Raju Mistry @ Raju and Dinanath Jaiswal respectively is hereby rejected. With a direction to the trial court to ensure that the trial of the petitioners is taken up expeditiously and concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the trial of the petitioners is not concluded within the aforementioned period of one year. they would be initially at liberty to move for bail before the trial court which would record reasons for not concluding the trial and only thereafter, the petitioners may renew the prayer for their bail before this Court. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)