IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1126 of 2009 NARESH YADAV S/O-Late Anup Yadav, R/O-Vill-Chandanpura, P.S.-Surajgarha, Distt.-Lakhisarai. …………………………………………..Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ……………………………………..Opposite Party. ----------- 3/ 20.04.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is sole named accused of the case which has been registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Informant is labourer of the petitioner. She was called upon by the petitioner for working in the field and was accompanied him. But the petitioner raped her in the field. The petitioner offered her Rs. 100/- which was refused. Submission is that the implication is on account of enmity. The petitioner had actively worked against Mukhia and Sarpanch in last election and on account of that the Mukhia and Sarpanch became inimical to him. So, this petitioner has been implicated at the behest of - 2 - the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. has stated some different versions that the crop was harvested but nothing has been found by the I.O. The informant appears to be a normal lady and such lady cannot implicate her owner with such case. The prosecutrix has been examined and the doctor has found her having abrasion mark over her back. This is the corroboration of allegation under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering this, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. kksinha/ (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)