IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32931 of 2009 ARUN MANDAL @ ARUN KUMAR s/o Shyamdeo Mandal, resident of village Ithari, P. S. Dhamdaha, District- Purnea….. Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Kanchan Kumari daughter of Nepali Singh resident of vill. Itahari, P. S. Dhamdaha, Distt. Purnea. … Opposite parties ----------- 4. 07.12.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for the informant. The petitioner facing prosecution for offence under Section 376,313,120(B)/34 I.P.C. has a defence that assuming the prosecution case to be true whatever had happened between the petitioner and the prosecutrix was one out of consent inasmuch as it has come in course of investigation that the petitioner was having old acquaintance and relationship and therefore there would not be question of committing rape as an implied consent can always be inferred out of such relationship. Counsel also submits that once the medical report has been submitted showing there to be no sign of rape and the radiologistic report showing the age of the girl to be 18 to 19 years, it has to be also 2 held that a wholly false allegation against the petitioner has been leveled by the prosecutrix and her family members. Counsel for the informant on the other hand has submitted that the dignity of a student, the prosecutrix and her modesty being outraged by the petitioner being a teacher who used to take tuition of the prosecutrix would go to show that the petitioner had influenced the young immature mind of the victim girl, the prosecutrix by crossing the dignified limits between a teacher and a student. He had also submitted that an adolescent mind was sought to be vitiated on false promise made by the petitioner and therefore even if it has come in course of investigation that the prosecutrix had shared a relationship with the petitioner, that would not mean that the prosecutrix had also given consent for outraging her modesty and establishing physical relationship which ultimately could have also led to both mental and physical humiliation for the prosecutrix. He would also refer to certain papers showing panchayati wherein the father of the 3 petitioner had agreed that the petitioner would marry to prosecutrix to salvage her dignity in society which was refused by the petitioner on the ground of his being a married man. Counsel for the State, in reply, has referred to various paragraphs of the case- diary suggesting that there has been a consistent version of all the witnesses as with regard to the prosecutrix being subjected to physical and mental humiliation at the instance of the petitioner and also the fact that the panchayati had taken place where the father of the petitioner had tried to find out a way out. Counsel for the petitioner, in reply, has submitted that the whole story of panchayati must be held to be concocted inasmuch as the written certificate of the serpanch would definitely belie such story. In the opinion of this court, though any definite finding on the aforesaid aspects at the stage of considering the prayer for bail could become detrimental to the prosecution case but then this much becomes clear from the surrounding facts that the 4 petitioner and the prosecutrix had shared a relationship in which the prosecutrix either on her own volition or being persuaded by the petitioner for being married had crossed dignified limits. In Indian Society no unmarried girl normally would like to risk her own dignity which may jeopardize her entire fate future and therefore this court will have to accept that part of her statement that the petitioner while becoming intimate to the prosecutrix on account of old relationship initially as a student and a teacher had crossed the dignified limits by making her believe that the petitioner would get married to the prosecutrix. It was thus the promise of getting married which may have swayed her to cross the dignified limit, which no Indian girl before marriage would like to do. In that view of the matter, even if the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecutrix being major above 16 years and thus capable of giving consent to physical relationship with the petitioner is accepted, the petitioner still would be liable for offence under Section 415 5 of the Indian Penal Code by way of cheating and therefore his prayer for bail must be rejected. The petitioner however is in custody since 2.7.2009 and thus the trial court is hereby directed to take up the trial out of turn and ensure that the trial of the petitioner is concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event, the trial of the petitioner for deliberate laches on the part of the prosecution would not be concluded within the aforementioned period, the petitioner would have liberty to initially move the trial court which then would record reasons for not concluding the trial in the aforementioned time frame. Only thereafter the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this court. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)