Yashoda DeviversusThe State Of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4744 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2024 Thana- PIRI BAZAR District- Lakhisarai
                 ======================================================
           1.     Yashoda Devi W/o Late Bhuneshwar Mahto R/O Maheshwar P.S.- Piribajar,
                  Dist.- Lakhisarai
           2.    Piyush Kumar S/O Late Bhuneshwar Mahto R/O Maheshwar P.S.- Piribajar,
                 Dist.- Lakhisarai

                                                                                    ... ... Appellant/s
                                                        Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    X D/O Shri Sitaram Chaudhary R/O Vill.- Piribazar, P.S.- Piribazar, Dist.-
                 Lakhisarai

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s      :        Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
                                                   Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Pranshu, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Sadanand Paswan, A.P.P.
                 For Respondent No.2      :        Mr. Mayank Vilochan, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   04-06-2026                  Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned Advocate for

                   the appellants and Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Spl. Public

                   Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. Mayank Vilochan,

                   learned Advocate for respondent No.2 through virtual mode.

                                2. The present appeal is preferred against the order

                   dated 04.07.2025, passed by the learned District and Additional

                   Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge SC/ST, Lakhisarai whereby

                   the learned Court has been pleased to reject the prayer for

                   anticipatory bail in connection with Piribazar P.S. Case No. 150

                   of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 64(1), 316(1),
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4744 of 2025(3) dt.04-06-2026
                                             2/4




          352 and 351(1) for the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(i)

          (r) and 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

                       3. Based upon the written report, it is alleged that the

          respondent no.2 was in relationship with son of the appellant

          no.1. However, on the pretext of one or other reason, he did not

          get ready to solemnize marriage and when the respondent no.2

          informed the appellant no.1, who happens to be the mother of

          the co-accused Nitish Kumar, initially she was demanded a huge

          dowry and further on 15.11.2024, both the appellants abused the

          respondent no.2 in public view by taking her caste name.

                       4. Learned Advocate for the appellants while assailing

          the impugned order has submitted that from the reading of the

          F.I.R., it is evident that both the respondent no.2 and the son of

          the appellant no.1 were in relationship for more than 13 years

          and only on account of the fact that their marriage could not be

          settled, the present F.I.R. came to be instituted in order to mount

          pressure and any how settle the score. The entire allegation

          revolves around co-accused Nitish Kumar. So far the allegation

          with regard to abusing by taking the caste name of the

          respondent no.2 is concerned, it does not appear to be

          trustworthy for the simple reason that neither it has been

          discussed that what kind of abuse has been given nor the name
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4744 of 2025(3) dt.04-06-2026
                                             3/4




          of the independent witnesses have been discussed, who were

          present at that point of time. It is further contended that the

          respondent no.2 has also not disclosed that the incident took

          place only on account of the fact that she belongs to the member

          of the vulnerable section of the society. It is lastly contended

          that be that as it may, the appellant no.1 is a women, having fear

          antecedent, aged about 65 years, whereas the appellant no.2 is

          the brother of co-accused Nitish Kumar and there is general and

          omnibus allegation of abusing. The learned Special Judge while

          rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail has not considered the

          material facts available on record and, as such, committed

          serious error on the facts as well as law.

                     5. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor

          for the State and the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the

          prayer of the appellants and submitted that there is specific

          accusation against the appellants of abuse by taking the caste

          name in public view.

                    6. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf

          of the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking

          note of the fact that the incidence has not taken place only on

          account of the fact that the respondent no.2 belongs to a member

          of the vulnerable section of the society; moreover, as per the
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4744 of 2025(3) dt.04-06-2026
                                                          4/4




                       allegation, she was in relationship with the son of the appellant

                       no.1 for more than a decade, inasmuch as informant-respondent

                       no.2 is not able to disclose as to in whose presence such

                       incidence has taken place.

                                    7. This Court finds substance in the present appeal

                       and accordingly the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 is hereby

                       set aside. The present appeal stands allowed.

                                    8. Let the appellants, named above, in the event of

                       their arrest or surrender before the court below within four

                       weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this

                       order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of

                       Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the

                       like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District and

                       Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge SC/ST,

                       Lakhisarai in connection with Piribazar P.S. Case No. 150 of

                       2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482

                       (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the

                       further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close

                       relative of the appellants.



                                                   (Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-

U        T