IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1632 of 2009 Umesh Rai @ Umeshwar Rai Son of Late Jugeshwar Rai, resident Of Village- Bakhari, Police Station –Raja Paker, District-Vaishali ------------------------- Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 04-05-2009 Heard Mr. Shailendra Kr.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner Umesh Rai @ Umeshwar Rai, the sole F.I.R.named accused of Hajipur Town P.S. Case no.324 of 2008 registered under Section 376 I.P.C. , is in custody in connection therewith, for allegedly having committed rape on Sarita Devi at the point of pistol. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet under Sections 447 and 354 I.P.C. against the petitioner and before cognizance could be taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, petitioner moved for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, which was rejected by the impugned order. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner although chargesheet was submitted under Sections 447 and 354 I.P.C. the Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance for offence under Section376 I.P.C. It appears from perusal of the case diary and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner was instrumental in forcibly committing rape at the point of pistol. That apart, the statements of the witnesses in paragraph nos. 8,9 and 17 of the case diary also support the factum of the - 2 - petitioner committing of rape on the victim. It is true that the statement of the victim has not been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also true that the victim does not appear to have been examined by a doctor to establish the factum of rape. However, the fact remains that the victim herself is the complainant of complaint petition no.1532 of 2008 which on being sent to the Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. became the basis for registration of Hajipur Town P.S. Case no.324 of 2008. Having considered the factum of rape which is sought to be supported in her further statement and with additional help from the statements of the witnesses recorded in paragraph nos.8,9 and 17 of the case diary supporting the factum of rape having been committed by the petitioner, I am no inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail . His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. NKS/- ( Abhijit Sinha, J )