Lalita DeviversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 12609 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
           1.     Lalita Devi W/o Dilip Thakur Resident of Village- Chakmahadin, PS-
                  Jandaha, District- Vaishali
           2.    Dilip Thakur S/o Late Basudeo Thakur Resident of Village- Chakmahadin,
                 PS- Jandaha, District- Vaishali
           3.    Rumit Thakur S/o Dilip Thakur @ Mukesh kumar Resident of Village-
                 Chakmahadin, PS- Jandaha, District- Vaishali
           4.    Rinku Devi W/o Pankaj Thakur R/o vill - Nauachak, P.S.- Sarairanjan,
                 Distt.- Samastipur
                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                              Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.     X D/o Y R/o vill - Chakmahadin, P.S.- Jandaha, Distt.- Vaishali
                                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-03-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2),

                   126(2), 64, 69, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 read

                   with Section 9 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Section 4

                   of POCSO Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                   petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no.1

                   and 4 are women and the informant alleges that while she was a

                   minor, accused Rajnish forcefully married her on 18.02.2023 in

                   a Shiva temple, thereafter started establishing physical relation,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 12609 of 2026(2) dt.23-03-2026
                                            2/3




          further while she was in Intermediate in 2025, when Mukesh,

          Lalita and Arti pressurized her to leave her parental house and

          even gave Rs.10,000/-, thus she left her house without

          informing her parents and Rajnish took her to Delhi and kept

          her at his cousin sister Rinku Devi’s place, thereafter started

          living separately like husband and wife, it is next alleged that

          Rajnish used to call unknown persons and made them see her,

          on protest, after one month Rumit and Dilip brought her to

          Patna where Lalita and Arti received her at Danapur and brought

          her to Chakmahdin, where Rumit forcibly tried to establish

          physical relation but on protest she was assaulted and ousted,

          thus came to the village, further the informant intends to stay

          with Rajnish.

                       4. Learned counsel submits that petitioners have been

          falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant being

          mother, father, brother and cousin married sister of Rajnish. It is

          next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in

          the FIR, it would manifest that informant though alleges that

          Rajnish married her in the year 2023 when she was a minor but

          then no case came to be instituted, thereafter in 2025 they fled

          to Delhi, where again dispute arose, as recorded hereinabove

          and thereafter she came to Danapur and alleges that Rumit, who
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 12609 of 2026(2) dt.23-03-2026
                                                       3/3




                     is brother of Rajnish intended to establish physical relation but

                     on protest she was assaulted and ousted from the house. It is

                     submitted that Rumit has been falsely implicated in the instant

                     case only to coerce Rajnish into submission. It is next submitted

                     that it is not the case that Rumit is alleged to have committed

                     physical assault. It is next submitted that as far as other

                     petitioners are concerned, they being relatives of Rajnish, have

                     been implicated with general and omnibus allegation.

                                  5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

                     anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

                                  6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                     counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the

                     event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks

                     from today, be released on anticipatory 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

                     trial court where the case is pending/successor court in

                     connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.63 of 2025, subject to the

                     conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.



                                                       (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U      T