Patna High Court
Nirmala DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The Court held that in the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners and given their clean antecedent, anticipatory bail may be granted subject to statutory conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Nirmala Devi and Bitto Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a kidnapping case involving a minor, filed under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the minor daughter of an informant was kidnapped by the accused, including the petitioners, and that the informant was threatened when he sought the return of his daughter. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, had no specific allegations against them in the victim's statement, and possessed clean antecedents, with the victim naming only other co‑accused. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. Considering the lack of direct allegation, the petitioners' clean record, and the circumstances, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 96 of the BNSS and the POCSO Act.
- Whether the prosecution has sufficient material to justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 182, 183, 482(2), 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- POCSO Act
- BNSS
- clean antecedent
- minor
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1859 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-433 Year-2024 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Nirmala Devi W/o Ramsanjog Rai @ Ram Sanyog Rai, Resident of Village -
Ward No.- 10,Tikauli, P.S- Runnisaidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi.
2. Bitto Kumar @ Bikku Kumar @ Bittu Kumar S/o Ramsanjog Rai @ Ram
Sanyog Rai, Resident of Village - Ward No.- 10,Tikauli, P.S- Runnisaidpur,
Distt.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. X Son of Y Resident of - Tikauli, P.S.- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Bhuwan Jayant, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shalini, Advocate.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma,
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 06-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.433 of 2024 instituted under
Sections 96 of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 8, 12 of the
POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the minor daughter of
the informant was kidnapped by the accused persons including
the petitioners. It is alleged that when informant went to the
house of accused Sanjay Rai, they abused him and threaten of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1859 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
2/3
dire consequences and also refused to return his daughter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this
case only on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that there
is no specific allegation against the petitioners. Learned counsel
submits that as per the medical report, the age of the victim is
estimated between 15–17 years. The victim in her statement
recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS has made specific
allegation against the co-accused Sanjay Rai, Akhilesh Rai and
Mrityunjay Kumar. Co-accused Sanjay Rai is already in judicial
custody. Learned counsel submits that the victim in her
statement has not made any allegation against the petitioners.
He further submits that petitioner no.1 is sister-in-law and
petitioner no.2 is nephew of the co-accused Sanjay Rai. Learned
counsel submits that petitioner no.1 is lady and petitioner no.2 is
a young boy of 21 years, they having got clean antecedent and
they undertake to cooperate in the investigation and trial of the
case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1859 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
3/3
nature of allegation against the petitioners as well as their clean
antecedent and also the fact that petitioner no.2 is a young boy
of 21 years, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court
below within six weeks from today, the petitioners be released
on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount to each to
the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-
cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitmarhi/ concerned Court in
connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.433 of 2024, subject
to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
Checking your session…