Patna High Court
Shobha Devi @ Runa DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioners, Shobha Devi and Sita Devi, sought anticipatory bail after learning that they might be arrested in a case involving kidnapping, rape, and other offences under Sections 363, 366A, 34, 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. They contended that they have clean antecedents, are not named in the FIR, and were only implicated through a confessional statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. The petitioners argued that their familial relationship with the alleged perpetrator Raju does not make them complicit and that they would cooperate with the investigation if bail is granted. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a 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 in a case involving offences under the IPC and POCSO Act.
- Whether the petitioners' lack of mention in the FIR and their familial relationship with the alleged accused preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the BNSS can be invoked to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 183, 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A, 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- rape
- false implication
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- Section 482
- BNSS
- bail conditions
- women
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32068 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2019 Thana- MOKAMAH District- Patna
======================================================
1. Shobha Devi @ Runa Devi W/O Sanju Ram @ Sanjeev Ram @ Sanjeet
Ram R/O Village- Ward No. 1(11), Mekra Dih (Melocahid), P.S.- Mokama,
Dist.- Patna.
2. Sita Devi @ Manisha Kumari @ Manisha Kumar W/O Bablu Ram R/O
Village- Ward No. 1(11), Mekra Dih (Melocahid), P.S.- Mokama, Dist.-
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X W/O Y R/O Village- Mekara (Nao Ghar), P.O.- Mekara, P.S.- Mokama,
Distt.- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Lal Babu Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A
and 34 of the IPC and later on Section 376 (P.H) IPC and
Section 4 of POCSO Act were added.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and are women
and in sum and substance the allegation is that the minor
daughter of the informant was kidnapped on 6-5-2019 at 6 pm
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32068 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
by the accused, it is next alleged that Rinku Devi used to tell her
to marry her daughter as she had got a boy thus apprehends that
the named accused persons in collusion kidnapped her minor
daughter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that petitioners are not
named in the FIR and their name transpired in the confessional
statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS. It is
further submitted that victim in her statement recorded under
Section 183 BNSS has supported the case of the prosecution and
has stated that she was raped by Raju. It is further submitted that
petitioner no. 1 is mother of Raju and petitioner no. 2 is sister of
Raju as such it does not appear probable that petitioners would
have aided Raju in committing the occurrence, but since they
are related with Raju hence they also came to be implicated in
the instant case. It is also submitted that if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, the petitioners will
not abscond rather will co-operate in the investigation to prove
their innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32068 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Mokamah P.S. Case No. 97 of 2019, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.