Patna High Court
Aarti DeviversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Aarti Devi applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging offences under various sections of the B.N.S., the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. She argued that a notice had been duly served to the father of the second opposite party, who failed to appear, and that she is falsely implicated, similar to a prior case where anticipatory bail was granted to Lalita Devi. The court noted her clean antecedent, her status as a woman, and the lack of opposition from the second opposite party. Relying on Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court ordered that she be released on bail upon surrender, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties. The application for anticipatory bail was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the case
- Whether the notice served to the father of the opposite party satisfies the requirement of valid service
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 64, 69
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
- POCSO Act — s. 4
- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act — s. 9
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- women
- false implication
- child marriage
- POCSO
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16866 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Vaishali
======================================================
Aarti Devi W/O Mukesh Thakur @ Mukesh Kumar Resident Of Village-
Chakmahaddin, Ps- Jandaha, Dist- Vaishali At Hajipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. X D/O Mahesh Thakur Resident Of Village- Chakmahaddin, Ps- Jandaha,
pin- 844505, Dist- Vaishali At Hajipur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sachin Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 03-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of her
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 115(2), 126(2), 64, 69, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S.,
Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 9 of ithe Prohibition of
Child Marriage Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
from perusal of the office report dated 26.05.2026, it would
manifest that ordinary notice has been received by the father of
the opposite party no.2.
4. Since the notice has been received by father of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16866 of 2026(3) dt.03-07-2026
2/4
opposite party no.2, hence the notice is deemed to be validly
served.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that opposite party no.2 despite
receiving notice chooses not to appear and contest the case.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
earlier Lalita Devi along with three others had approached this
Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.12609 of
2026 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated
23.03.2026. It is further submitted that petitioner is a person
with clean antecedent and is a woman 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. It is next submitted that while she
was an Intermediate in the Year 2025, when Mukesh, Lalita and
Aarti 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 at his cousin
sister Rinku Devi’s place. It is further alleged that after some
time, they started living separately like husband and wife. It is
next alleged that Rajnish used to call unknown person and made
them see her. On protest, after one month, Rumit and Dilip
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16866 of 2026(3) dt.03-07-2026
3/4
brought her to Patna where Lalita and petitioner received her at
Danapur and brought her to Chakmahdin where Rumit
forcefully tried to establish physical relation but on protest, she
was assaulted and ousted, thus came to the village. Further,
informant intends to stay with Rajnish.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case being
co-villager of Rajnish. It is next submitted that from perusal of
the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that when Rumit and Dilip brought her to
Patna, she was received by Lalita and petitioner at Danapur
from where she was brought to Chakmahdin where Rumit
forcefully tried to establish physical relation, but on protest, she
was assaulted and ousted. It is thus submitted that from perusal
of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
Rumit did not establish any physical relation with the informant.
It is next submitted that informant also alleges that she intends
to stay with Rajnish which amply demonstrates that all those
who are known to Rajnish has been implicated in the instant
case with some allegation in order to coerce Rajnish into
submission. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner
if not akin is similar to the case of Lalita Devi and others. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16866 of 2026(3) dt.03-07-2026
4/4
also submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail application is
granted, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in
the investigation to her innocence.
8. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the fact
that petitioner is a woman and is a person with clean antecedent,
the petitioner, above-named, in the event of her arrest or
surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six
weeks, is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing bail-
bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
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 laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
10. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.