Patna High Court
Nagina MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The petitioners are to be enlarged on bail in connection with the case.
Summary
The petitioners, Nagina Mahto and Devpati Devi, relatives of co‑accused Punit Kumar, were arrested in connection with a kidnapping and sexual exploitation case (IPC §§366A, 34 and POCSO Act §8) involving a 16‑year‑old girl. They contended that they were falsely implicated because the victim’s statement merely recorded that the girl was taken to their house by Punit Kumar, with no overt act attributed to them. The State opposed bail, citing the victim’s statement under Cr.P.C. §164 and alleged threats made by Punit Kumar. The Court noted the absence of any direct incriminating act against the petitioners, their lack of criminal antecedents, the fact that the co‑accused had already been released on bail, and the prolonged pre‑trial detention since 10‑12‑2025. Accordingly, the Court ordered that both petitioners be enlarged on regular bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners, Nagina Mahto and Devpati Devi, are entitled to regular bail in the kidnapping and POCSO case despite being named in the victim’s statement.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 164, 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 366A
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 8
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- POCSO
- IPC
- regular bail
- false implication
- minor
- East Champaran
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16404 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2023 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Nagina Mahto S/o- Late Kulesar Mahto resident of village- Shampur
Baithaniya Brit PS- Majhauliya District- West Champaran
2. Devpati Devi resident of village- Shampur Baithaniya Brit PS- Majhauliya
District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pachiya Devi W/o- Achhelal Mahto R/v- Surajpur Bagha Tola PS-
Piprakothi Dist- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Dhandev Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sharfraz Ahmad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 06-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case
no.210 of 2023 registered under sections 366A and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and section 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that his 16 year old minor daughter was kidnapped by the five
named accused persons. The informant further states that threats
are being given to him to enter into a compromise in Piprakothi
P.S. Case no.179 of 2020.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16404 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case only for the
reason that they happen to be the relatives/fua and fufa of the
FIR named accused Punit Kumar. Though the name of the
petitioners transpired in course of investigation in the statement
of the victim recorded under section 183 BNSS, however no
overt-act has been alleged against them. The only material
against them is that co-accused Punit Kumar had taken the
victim to the house of the petitioners. The said Punit Kumar has
been enlarged on bail vide order dated 18.11.2024 passed in Cr.
Misc. no.56305 of 2024. The petitioners have no criminal
antecedent and are in custody since 10.12.2025. Charge-sheet
has been submitted in the case.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P
for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned
counsel for the informant submits that the victim has taken the
name of the petitioners in her statement under section 164
Cr.P.C. The victim was taken by co-accused Punit Kumar to the
house of these petitioners. The said Punit Kumar had threatened
that if the victim did not marry him, he would make her
objectionable photographs viral.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16404 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the material
that has transpired against the petitioners in course of
investigation, the co-accused Punit Kumar having been enlarged
on bail vide aforesaid order dated 18.11.2024 and the petitioners
having remained in custody since 10.12.2025, both the
petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with
Piprakothi P.S. Case no.210 of 2023 on each of them furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
6th District & Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive Special
Judge, POCSO Act, East Champaran, Motihari.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.