IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.566 of 2011 MUKESH RAM & ANR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 31.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the state. According to prosecution case itself, the alleged occurrence took place 5-6 months ago and, thereafter, when the victim girl became pregnant, she disclosed before her mother that petitioners committed rape on her. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the victim was a consenting party because the petitioners had a visiting term to the house of the informant. So, even if the prosecution story assumed to be true, then also it is not a case of section-376 of the Indian Penal Code. I am not in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners because as per written report of the informant, victim girl was aged about 12 years whereas in medical examination, she has been found aged about 13-15 years. Considering the aforesaid circumstanes, I do not feel it proper to release the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, their prayer for bail in connection with Puraini P.S. Case No. 75 of 2010 stands rejected. It appears that the case of the petitioners is still pending - 2 - before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura and the case of petitioners has not been committed to the court of sessions as yet. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura is directed to commit the case of the petitioners to the court of sessions in accordance with law and after commitment, if the trial of the petitioners, is not concluded within nine months, the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail. AKV/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)