Patna High Court
LALPARI DEVIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Lalpari Devi and Guddi Kumari, female relatives of the main accused Raj Kumar Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a kidnapping case involving the minor daughter of an informant. The offence alleged under IPC sections 363(a), 366(a) and 120(b) stemmed from a complaint filed on 28‑11‑2017, six days after the alleged incident on 22‑11‑2017, raising questions about the delay. The petitioners argued that no coercive measures had been taken against them and that the main accused had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. Considering the delay, the fact that the main accused was on bail, and the petitioners’ status as female family members, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions of cooperation and compliance with Sections 438(2) CrPC/482(2) B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in the kidnapping and criminal conspiracy case
- Whether the delay in filing the complaint justifies denial of bail
- Whether the grant of bail to the main accused influences the bail application of the petitioners
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(b), 363(a), 366(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- criminal conspiracy
- delay in complaint
- female accused
- bail conditions
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25204 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2018 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Lalpari Devi W/o Subash Yadav R/o vill - Betwaniya, P.S.- Kateya, Distt.-
Gopalganj, Bihar
2. Guddi Kumari D/o Subash Yadav R/o vill - Betwaniya, P.S.- Kateya, Distt.-
Gopalganj, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Priya Raj
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pushpa Sinha.1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a
case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363(a),
366(a), 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioners along with other accused persons
are said to have kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
present case arises out of a complaint case which was
subsequently sent for institution of the FIR under Section 156(3)
of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that there are a general and
omnibus allegations on all the accused persons, especially on
one Raj Kumar Yadav, that they had kidnapped the daughter of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25204 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
2/3
the informant. It is further submitted that it would be apparent
from the complaint itself that even after knowing about the said
incident the complainant/informant waited for the next day
morning to go to the police station to lodge an FIR. However,
the incident is said to have taken place on 22.11.2017, the
complaint was filed only on 28.11.2017 and no plausible
explanation remains for the delay. It is further submitted that the
main thrust of allegation is on co-accused Raj Kumar Yadav
who has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this
Court (Annexure-P/2) considering the entire merits of the case.
The petitioners are the female members of the family, the
petitioner no. 1 being the mother aged about 60 years and
petitioner no. 2 being the sister of the main accused Raj Kumar
Yadav. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that
till date no coercive processes have been issued against the
petitioners.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the
application for anticipatory bail.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering that the main accused has
been granted bail and these petitioners are female members of
the family, let the above named petitioners in the event of their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25204 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
3/3
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor
court in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 53 of 2018,
subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of
the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S., subject to the further
condition that the petitioner would cooperate in the
investigation/trial and if the petitioners do not cooperate in the
investigation/trial, the prosecution would be at liberty to file
application for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…