IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39570 of 2010 RAJ KUMAR MISHRA, SON OF LATE HARENDRA MISHRA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04 13.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. for the State. Petitioner seeks his bail in connection with Kuchaikot P.S. Case No. 135 of 2010 registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. There is specific allegation against the petitioner that he along with other accused committed rape on the victim. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the story, as propounded by the victim, appears to be absurd and, as a matter of fact, petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further contended that the victim was medically examined but no sign of rape was found on her person. Considering the above stated submissions as well as facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. Let the trial of the petitioner be expedited and the learned trial court shall conclude the trial of the petitioner preferably within nine months and if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the above stated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. Shahzad (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J )