IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13809 of 2011 Rakesh Singh Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 2 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state. The petitioner is said to be rapist of a minor girl, aged about 9-10 years. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case by the informant and as a matter of fact, no such occurrence did ever take place. It is contended by him that the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on 29.10.2010 whereas, the occurrence is said to be taken place on 25.10.2010 and no explanation of the aforesaid delay, has been given. It is further contended by him that several co- villagers submitted a written report before the DIG, Saran Range, Chapra disclosing the real fact and furthermore, when the victim girl was medically examined on 02.11.2010, no sign of intercourse was found on her person and furthermore, the prosecution has not given explanation for delay in examination of the victim girl. Although learned counsel for the petitioner tried to convince me about the innocence of the petitioner but I am not, at all, convinced with his submission. Admittedly, the 2 victim girl has narrated the entire episode in her statement recorded under section-164 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, considering the nature of alleged offence as well as submission of the parties, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 237 of 2010 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra stands rejected at least, at this stage. AKV/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)