Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Samitri DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioners.

Summary

The petitioners, Samitri Devi, Pundeo Chaudhary and Chhathu Chaudhary, sought anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR alleging kidnapping of a minor daughter of an informant. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, being the mother, father and uncle of a co‑accused, participated in the kidnapping, and the victim remained missing. The petitioners contended they were innocent, had clean antecedents, and were implicated solely due to familial ties, also highlighting a 22‑day delay in filing the FIR. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific accusations, the seriousness of the offences under Sections 137(2), 96, 303(2) and 351(2) of the B.N.S., and the fact that the minor was still untraceable. Considering the gravity of the charges, the direct nature of the allegations, and the victim’s continued absence, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under the circumstances of the kidnapping case involving a minor.

Legislation cited

  • B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 303(2), 351(2), 96

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • kidnapping
  • minor
  • criminal procedure
  • bail
  • Sections 137, 96, 303, 351

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19936 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2025 Thana- SRINAGAR District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
           1.     Samitri Devi W/o Pundev Chaudhary @ Pundeo Chaudhary Resident of
                  village - Bhagwanpur Ward No. 1, P.S - Nadi, District -West Champran
           2.    Pundeo Chaudhary @ Pundev Chaudhary S/o Late Kanahi Chaudhary
                 Resident of village - Bhagwanpur Ward No. 1, P.S - Nadi, District -West
                 Champran
           3.    Chhathu @ Chhadhu Chaudhary S/o Late Kanahi Chaudhary Resident of
                 village - Bhagwanpur Ward No. 1, P.S - Nadi, District -West Champran

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioners     :       Mr. Niraj Kumar Sharma, Advocate
                 For the State           :       Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 96,

                   303(2) and 351(2) of the B.N.S..

                                3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that all the

                   F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners,

                   kidnapped minor daughter of informant.

                                4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

                   behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and

                   have committed no offence. Petitioners have falsely been
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19936 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                                         2/2




                       implicated in this case merely because Petitioner No. 1 happens

                       to be mother, Petitioner No. 2 happens to be father and

                       Petitioner No. 3 happens to be uncle of co-accused Pawan

                       Kumar. The present F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate delay

                       of 22 days and there is no plausible explanation for the same

                       which itself makes the entire prosecution case doubtful.

                       Petitioners claim clean antecedents.

                                    5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has

                       vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to

                       the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the

                       F.I.R. and there is specific accusation that they, along with other

                       F.I.R. named accused persons, kidnapped minor daughter of

                       informant. The victim is minor and still traceless.

                                    6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                       case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence

                       and the fact that the victim is still traceless, the prayer for grant

                       of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.