IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 30077 of 2011 1. Tinku Raut @ Tippu Raut, S/o Madan Raut. 2. Anil Kumar Raut @ Anil Kumar, S/o Battan Raut. Versus The State Of Bihar ------------------ 02. 15.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the offences under Section 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that only in the column of accused the name of Madan has been mentioned but in the narrative of the fardbeyan the son of Madan Raut is the accused and on account of such disparity the petitioner No. 1 deserves to be bailed out. As for petitioner No. 2, it has been submitted that Madan Raut has other son-in-law and it can not be suspected that it is the petitioner No. 2 who had committed this occurrence. However, considering that in the narrative of the First Information Report it is specifically been stated that it was the son of Madan Raut who had committed the offence and the name of son-in-law had been later on named by the villagers as also petitioner No. 1, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. The prayer for bail is rejected. At the appropriate stage, the Trial Court will consider as to whether Section 376 (g) is made out in the facts of the case. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)