Patna High Court
Sarika @ Sarika KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail is denied to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, three women from Badiha village, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a case alleging trafficking of minor girls and operation of a brothel disguised as an orchestra. The prosecution’s case is based on a police raid prompted by an informant’s report and statements of recovered minor girls, one of whom alleged that the petitioners had been sending her for illegal activities for two years. The petitioners contended they were not present at the raid, had no role in the alleged brothel, and possessed a clean antecedent. The State argued that the petitioners were named accused and that a similar anticipatory bail petition by a co‑accused had been rejected. After reviewing the statements and noting the prior rejection of anticipatory bail for a co‑accused, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations and the statements of the minor girl.
- Whether the prior rejection of anticipatory bail for a co‑accused influences the grant of bail to the petitioners.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — 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 (POCSO) Act — s. 13, 14, 4, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- trafficking of minors
- brothel
- orchestra
- POCSO Act
- Juvenile Justice Act
- Immoral Traffic Act
- Bonded Labour Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17068 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-395 Year-2025 Thana- NASRIGANJ District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Sarika @ Sarika Kumari D/o- Gyanti Devi Resident of Village- Badiha PS-
Nasriganj District- Rohtas
2. Radhika Rani @ Radhika Kumari @ Radhika Devi D/o- Shivdayal Nat
Resident of Village- Badiha PS- Nasriganj District- Rohtas
3. Sheela Devi @ Sheela @ Sheela Nat W/o- Rupchand @ Rupchand Nat
Resident of Village- Badiha PS- Nasriganj District- 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
4 20-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17068 of 2026(4) dt.20-05-2026
2/3
minor girls from different states, a raiding party was constituted
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 petitioners submits
that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any
offence. He further submits that the petitioners were not present
at the place of occurrence and the name of the petitioners have
been disclosed by the girls, who are alleged to have been
recovered by the police, but without there being any specific
allegation against them. He further submits that the petitioners
have got no role in either running the orchestra or in any manner
with the persons concerned with the orchestra. He further
submits that the petitioners have got a clean antecedent.
5. Per contra, the learned APP for the state submits
that the petitioners have been named in the case along with
accused persons and they were working for the orchestra
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17068 of 2026(4) dt.20-05-2026
3/3
owners, who were running Brothel in the garb of orchestra. He
further 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 petitioners are
named accused in the present case 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
petitioners were 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
petitioners 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.