Patna High Court
Laxmi DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that regular bail could not be granted and dismissed the bail application.
Summary
Laxmi Devi, the petitioner, was charged under Sections 127(2), 140(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly kidnapping a minor girl, confining her for the purpose of trafficking and illicit intercourse. The petitioner sought regular bail, arguing that the victim’s statement during trial supported her innocence and that co‑accused had been granted bail. The Court, relying on the seriousness of the allegations involving a minor and on Supreme Court precedents (Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 and X v. State of Rajasthan, 2024), rejected the victim’s statement as a basis for bail and dismissed the bail application. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial. The earlier bail denial dated 30‑07‑2025 was reaffirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to an accused of kidnapping, human trafficking and sexual offences against a minor under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the victim’s statement supporting the petitioner can be considered in deciding bail.
- How the Supreme Court judgments in Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) and X v. State of Rajasthan (2024) affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 127(2), 140(3), 3(5)
Subjects
- regular bail
- kidnapping
- human trafficking
- sexual offences
- minor
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- victim statement
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12472 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Laxmi Devi Wife of Late Ram Pukar Rai Resident of Village - Senduyari,
P.S.- Sadar, District - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Mahila
P.S. Case No.20 of 2025 registered for the offence under
Sections 127(2), 140(3), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. Earlier, the bail of the petitioner was rejected
by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2025 passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.45251 of 2025. The aforesaid order dated
30.07.2025 reads as under:-
“Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail
in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 20
of 2025 registered for the offence under
Sections 127(2), 140(3), 3(5) of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12472 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
petitioner is accused of kidnapping the
minor daughter of the informant and
confining her in a room with intent for
trafficking and illicit intercourse.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner is innocent and has
not committed any offence. Petitioner is in
custody since 26.3.2025. He further
submits that the victim had left her house
on her own.
5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Though the victim had left her
house on her own but the petitioner and
two other females took the victim to their
home where she was drugged and sexual
acts were committed with her. The victim is
a minor. It appears to be a case of human
trafficking.
7. Considering the aforesaid, I am
not inclined to grant regular bail to the
petitioner. Accordingly, this application for
regular bail is hereby dismissed.
8. The Trial Court is directed to
expedite the trial in light of the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pinki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 781.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12472 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
that in the trial the victim has been examined and she has given
a statement which supports the petitioner and further the co-
accused have been granted bail and on these grounds, the
petitioner deserves bail.
5. Considering the nature of allegation levelled
against the petitioner and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan reported
as 2024 SCC OnLIne SC 3539, I am not inclined to consider the
statement of the victim girl. Accordingly, this bail application is
dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and
conclude the same at the earliest.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.