IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45081 of 2008 SUNIL RAI, SON OF LATE RAMDEO RAI, R/V ARNA LOKNATHPUR, P.S. BHELDI, DISTRICT SARAN----------------------PETITIONER. Versus STATE OF BIHAR-------------------OPPOSITE PARTY. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kanhayya Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, APP. ----------- 03. 08.12.2008. Counsel for the informant has filed Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is an accused in a case under Sections 366 and 366A of the Penal Code and is named in the First Information Report along with his brother. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the victim was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but in the said statement petitioner is not named. Counsel for the informant, however, pointed out with reference to 164 Statement of the victim that she has also named the petitioner and his brother in her 164 Cr. P.C. statement and if there is discrepancy between 161 Cr. P.C. and 164 Cr. P.C. statement then 164 Cr. P.C. statement should be accepted at least for the purposes of grant of bail. It is also submitted by him that the victim was recovered on 21st and taken for medical examination on 22nd and the 164 Cr. P.C. statement was recorded on 23rd and with reference to these dates it is submitted that the informant had no occasion at all to tutor the victim. In consideration of the fact that petitioner is named as a suspect in the First Information Report and active participant in the - 2 - 164 Cr. P.C. statements, at this stage, I am not inclined to release him on bail and this application is, accordingly rejected. He is, however, at liberty to renew prayer for bail after completing one year in jail custody provided by then the trial is not over. Counsel for the informant is directed to examine all witnesses in quick succession. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J)