IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31618 of 2008 MANOJ YADAV @ MANOJ KUMAR YADAV SON OF PALTU YADAV RESIDENT OF BIJALPURA,P.S.ARER,DISTRICT MADHUBANI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 18.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. and also learned counsel appearing for the informant. The petitioner is a named accused of a case which has been registered for offences under Sections 363,366(A) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. During trial, two witnesses have been examined and offence of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code has been added in the charge. Submission is that the alleged victim Chandani Kumari was the consenting party which is clear from the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further submission is that neither Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code nor Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted against the petitioner because the doctor has found her to be 15 to 16 years of age and 16 is age of consent of the girl. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has made reliance on a decision in the case of Prem Sah .Vs.The State of Bihar reported in 1997 PLJR (2) 536. First Information report was lodged on 27.3.2007 and the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 27.2.2007 in which she has described as to how she was pounced upon and was carried away by the petitioner. In her statement in court, she has 2 supported the prosecution case. The trial has progressed well. Considering all these, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)