Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3719 (PAT)

Sushila Devi v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

CR. MISC./77985/2025 · 2026-02-23

Sandeep Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77985 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2025 Thana- MAHINDWARA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1. Sushila Devi W/O Ashok Ram R/o- Village- Olipur, P.S- Mahindwara, District- Sitamarhi. 2. Sanju Kumari D/o-Ashok Ram R/o- Village- Olipur, P.S- Mahindwara, District- Sitamarhi. 3. Chandrika Devi W/o-Nandu Ram R/o- Village- Olipur, P.S- Mahindwara, District- Sitamarhi. 4. Ashok Ram S/o-Bhikhari Ram R/o- Village- Olipur, P.S- Mahindwara, District- Sitamarhi. 5. Nandu Ram S/o- Asadhi Ram @ Aasdhi Ram R/o- Village- Olipur, P.S- Mahindwara, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR Patna 2. Most. Pramshila Devi W/o Late Ganesh Baitha R/o- Village- Olipur, P.S.- Mahindwara, Distt.- Sitamarhi ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deovind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Mahindwara P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 96, 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, few FIR named accused persons are alleged to have kidnapped the daughter of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77985 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026 2/3 the informant. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case. It is next submitted that the victim girl is alleged to have eloped and got married to Vikesh Kumar which is apparent from Annexure ‘P/2’ of the petition. Petitioners have clean antecedent. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this application is allowed. 7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the concerned Court below within four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge-VI-cum- Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitamarhi/ concerned Court below in connection with Mahindwara P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 482 of the BNSS. 8. This is subject to the condition that the victim girl Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77985 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026 3/3 will first appear and get her statement recorded in the court below within four weeks and if she agrees that she had eloped with the main accused then the bail bond of the petitioners shall be accepted otherwise it will not be accepted by the concerned court below. tusharika/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T