Patna High Court
Raju @ Raju RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail, finding that the material on record does not warrant the grant of such relief.
Summary
The petitioner, Raju Ram, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a case involving alleged trafficking of minor girls and multiple offences under the BNS, POCSO, Juvenile Justice, Immoral Traffic and Bonded Labour Acts. The prosecution’s case is based on a police raid at a village where several minor girls were rescued and a statement by one girl alleged that the petitioner had been sending her for illegal activities for two years. The petitioner contended he was not present at the location, had no role in the alleged brothel‑orchestra, and possessed a clean antecedent. The State argued that the petitioner was part of the orchestra’s operations and cited the rejection of anticipatory bail for a co‑accused in a related matter. After reviewing the statements and prior orders, the Court found sufficient material to deny anticipatory bail and rejected the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations and the statements of the rescued minor girl.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act (BNS) — s. 111, 143(1), 145, 296, 3(5)
- Bonded Labour Act — s. 16, 17, 18
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act — s. 3, 5, 6
- Juvenile Justice Act — s. 75, 79
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) — s. 13, 14, 4, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- trafficking of minors
- brothel
- orchestra
- criminal procedure
- POCSO Act
- Juvenile Justice Act
- Immoral Traffic Act
- Bonded Labour Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16984 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-395 Year-2025 Thana- NASRIGANJ District- Rohtas
======================================================
Raju @ Raju Ram S/o Late Bhola Ram Resident of Village- Natwar, PS-
Natwar, District- Rohtas, at present vill- Post and P.S.- Natwar, Dist.- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 20-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 395 of 2025, for
allegedly having committed offence under Sections 143(1), 145,
111, 296, 3(5) of BNS, and Sections 4, 8, 13, 14 of the POCSO
Act, Sections 75 and 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act, Sections 3,
5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic Act and Sections 16, 17 and 18 of
Bonded Labour Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, which has been
lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by the
informant to the effect that on the basis of the secret information
received by the superior police officials regarding trafficking of
minor girls from different states, a raiding party was constituted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16984 of 2026(3) dt.20-05-2026
2/3
and raid was conducted in village Bardiha. The police found
several girls, who were looking to be minor, near the house of
Radhika Devi, Sonu Nat, Munna Paswan, Sheela Nat, Sarika
Devi and Rajesh Gupta. The girls disclosed about their illegal
confinement. Some persons were arrested from the place of
occurrence, while some escaped from there. It was alleged that
in the name of orchestra, brothel was being run by the accused
persons.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any
offence. He further submits that the petitioner was not present at
the place of occurrence and the name of the petitioner has been
disclosed by the girls, who are alleged to have been recovered
by the police, but without there being any specific allegation
against him. He further submits that the petitioner has got no
role in either running the orchestra or in any manner with the
persons concerned with the orchestra. He further submits that
the petitioner has got a clean antecedent.
5. Per contra, the learned APP for the state submits
that the petitioner has been named in the case along with
accused persons and he was working for the orchestra owners,
who were running Brothel in the garb of orchestra. He further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16984 of 2026(3) dt.20-05-2026
3/3
submits that anticipatory bail petition of the co-accused Sonu
Nat, has been rejected by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court
vide order dated 08.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20575 of
2026.
6. Having heard the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that the petitioner is a
named accused in the present case and and from perusal of the
case diary it would transpire that one of the girls has stated in
her statement before the police and the Magistrate that the
petitioner was sending her to different places for illegal
activities for the last two years and she was being forced to do
the same. Further, a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 08.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20575 of
2026 has already rejected the anticipatory bail petition of co-
accused Sonu Nat. Considering the above, this court is not
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner and the same is accordingly rejected.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
Ajay/Kunal-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.