Patna High Court
Mosmat Uma Devi @ Musmat Uma DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court allowed the petitioners' anticipatory bail, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Mosmat Uma Devi and her son Mahesh Yadav applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a case alleging they aided the elopement of a minor girl with Arun Yadav, their son/brother. The prosecution claimed the petitioners threatened the informant and concealed the victim's whereabouts, while the petitioners asserted they were unaware of the elopement and the victim later stated she went of her own free will. An earlier bail order was set aside because the petitioners' criminal antecedent was not disclosed. The court examined whether the allegations and prior criminal record justified denial of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Considering the victim's statement and lack of direct involvement, the court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions, including surety, personal appearance, and verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 despite allegations of involvement in the elopement and a prior criminal antecedent.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 3(5), 351(2), 438(2), 482(2), 96
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal antecedent
- minor elopement
- bail conditions
- West Champaran
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11699 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2025 Thana- SRINAGAR District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Mosmat Uma Devi @ Musmat Uma Devi, W/O Late Madan Yadav, R/O
Village- Ranaha Ghorahiya, Police Station - Sirisiya, District - West
Champaran
2. Mahesh Yadav @ Muklesh Yadav, S/O Late Madan Yadav, R/O Village -
Ranaha Ghorahiya, Police Station - Sirisiya, District - West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant
of anticipatory bail.
2. Earlier, vide order dated 15.01.2026, the petitioners
were granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 85330 of 2025.
It has been submitted that due to inadvertence the criminal
antecedent of the petitioners could not be disclosed earlier and
hence the bail bonds of the petitioners were not accepted by the
learned Trial Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Shrinagar P.S. Case No. 185 of 2025 registered for the
offences under Sections 137(2), 96, 351(2) and 3(5) of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11699 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/4
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
5. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that his minor daughter had gone to attend the call of
nature and it is alleged that the co-accused namely Arun Yadav
made her sit on a motorcycle and both fled away. It has further
been alleged that when the informant went to the house of Arun
Yadav, his mother and brother (petitioners) abused him and
threatened him to go away.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this
case and they have no concern whatsoever with the elopement
of the informant’s daughter with the said Arun Yadav, who
happens to be the son and brother of the petitioners respectively.
It has further been submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is a widow
and the petitioner no. 2 is her son and they were not aware of
the elopement of the said Arun Yadav along with the victim. It
has further been submitted that when the impugned order was
passed, the victim was traceless but the victim has been traced
and her statement has been recorded by the police wherein she
has not alleged any specific overt act against these petitioners
and she has also stated that she had gone with Arun Yadav out of
her own sweet will. It has lastly been submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11699 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
3/4
petitioners have one criminal antecedent bearing Srinagar P.S.
Case No. 82 of 2020 in which they are on bail.
7. The learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that these
petitioners were hand in gloves with the said Arun Yadav and
they had deliberately not disclosed the whereabouts of the
victim and despite being given chance to trace the victim along
with their son and brother respectively, they did not help in
investigation and therefore the bail application should not be
entertained.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the
petitioners above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the
event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Shrinagar P.S. Case No. 185 of 2025, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11699 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
4/4
as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be their
close relative.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present in
Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court
concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at
liberty to move for cancellation of their bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it
is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However,
the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-
mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or
in the name of verification.
9. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
10. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…