Patna High Court - Orders
Nirmala Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 6 April, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1859 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-433 Year-2024 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Nirmala Devi W/o Ramsanjog Rai @ Ram Sanyog Rai, Resident of Village -
Ward No.- 10,Tikauli, P.S- Runnisaidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi.
2. Bitto Kumar @ Bikku Kumar @ Bittu Kumar S/o Ramsanjog Rai @ Ram
Sanyog Rai, Resident of Village - Ward No.- 10,Tikauli, P.S- Runnisaidpur,
Distt.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. X Son of Y Resident of - Tikauli, P.S.- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Bhuwan Jayant, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shalini, Advocate.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma,
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 06-04-20261. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.433 of 2024 instituted under Sections 96 of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 8, 12 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the minor daughter of the informant was kidnapped by the accused persons including the petitioners. It is alleged that when informant went to the house of accused Sanjay Rai, they abused him and threaten of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1859 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026 2/3 dire consequences and also refused to return his daughter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that as per the medical report, the age of the victim is estimated between 15-17 years. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS has made specific allegation against the co-accused Sanjay Rai, Akhilesh Rai and Mrityunjay Kumar. Co-accused Sanjay Rai is already in judicial custody. Learned counsel submits that the victim in her statement has not made any allegation against the petitioners. He further submits that petitioner no.1 is sister-in-law and petitioner no.2 is nephew of the co-accused Sanjay Rai. Learned counsel submits that petitioner no.1 is lady and petitioner no.2 is a young boy of 21 years, they having got clean antecedent and they undertake to cooperate in the investigation and trial of the case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1859 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026 3/3 nature of allegation against the petitioners as well as their clean antecedent and also the fact that petitioner no.2 is a young boy of 21 years, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount to each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI- cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitmarhi/ concerned Court in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.433 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) Ritik/-
U T