IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.276 of 2011 DWARIKA SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 31.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Allegedly, petitioner raped the informant in the house of co-accused Idrish Mian. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in course of investigation it came to light that above stated co-accused, namely, Idrish Mian used to supply girls, and as a matter of fact he was engaged in sex racket, so at best it could be said that petitioner had gone to the house of aforesaid Idrish Mian as a customer or at best it can be said that the victim was a consenting party. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that, in fardbeyan the victim has stated that she raped not only by the petitioner, but some other persons including one Raj Kumar Sah. When her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, she exonerated the above stated Raj Kumar Sah 2 saying that he had not committed rape on her. On the other hand, learned P.P. Incharge points out that the victim was minor at the time of alleged occurrence and there is specific allegation of rape against the petitioner. Taking into consideration the above stated facts as well as submissions of the parties, I do not feel it proper to release the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Semra P.S. Case No. 46 of 2010 stands rejected. PN (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)