Dukhni DeviversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16190 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2025 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Dukhni Devi Wife of Late Birendra Paswan @ Virendra Paswan Resident of
                 Village- Bhalluar, P.S.- Roshanganj, District- Gaya, Bihar

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Shama Sinha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Ahmad Ali, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-03-2026                     Heard Mr. Shama Sinha, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Ahmad Ali, learned APP for the State.

                                2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   04.11.2025, in connection with Roshanganj P.S. Case No. 102 of

                   2025, F.I.R. dated 09.07.2025               registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

                                3. Allegation against the petitioner is that she along

                   with other co-accused person have kidnapped the minor

                   daughter of the informant aged about 12 years.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has clean antecedent and she has been falsely

                   implicated in the present case. It appears from the F.I.R. that the

                   petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the

                   petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16190 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
                                            2/3




          of suspicion only that she is mother of co-accused person,

          namely, Ravi Kumar @ Rohit Kumar and except the aforesaid,

          no other cogent material has come during investigation to

          suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present

          occurrence.         He further submits that the police after

          investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and

          the petitioner is in custody since 04.11.2025.

                        5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

          State has vehemently opposed the prayer for               bail of the

          petitioner.

                        6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

          and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and she

          has been made accused merely on the ground that she is mother

          of co-accused person, let the petitioner, above named, be

          released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees

          Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

          satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Sherghati,

          Gaya in connection with Roshanganj P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025,

          subject to the following conditions :-

                        (1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

          properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court

          and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16190 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
                                                           3/3




                         on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

                         reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                                      (2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

                         witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

                         for cancellation of bail.

                                      (3) And, further condition that the court below shall

                         verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

                         any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed her

                         criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for

                         cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner.             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.



                                                                       (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-

U          T