Patna High Court
Vivek PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that bail must be granted to the petitioners subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The High Court heard two bail applications arising from the same police case (Sonki PS Case No.95 of 2025) in which the petitioners were accused under Sections 140(2) and 143(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly selling and purchasing an eight‑month‑old child. The petitioners contended that the informant‑mother’s statement recorded under Section 183 did not incriminate them and that they were falsely implicated, while the State opposed bail. The Court noted the absence of any incriminating allegation against the petitioners in the informant’s statement and considered their clean record (except one prior case for the second group). Accordingly, the Court granted bail to all petitioners, subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, including regular appearance before the trial court and non‑tampering with witnesses. The order disposed of both bail applications together.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 140(2) and 143(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in view of the informant’s statement and the nature of the alleged offence.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 140, 143, 183, 482
Subjects
- bail
- child trafficking
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 140
- Section 143
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3405 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2025 Thana- Sonki District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Vivek Paswan S/O Rajesh Paswan R/O Village - Ahiyapur, P.S - Bhalpatti,
District - Darbhanga, Bihar.
2. Raman Choupal S/O Late Rohit Choupal R/O Village - Ahiyapur, P.S -
Bhalpatti, District - Darbhanga, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3772 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2025 Thana- Sonki District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Sanjeev Chaupal @ Rajeev Chaupal S/o Rambharosh Chaupal R/o Village -
Ahiyapur, P.S - Bhalpatti, District - Darbhanga
2. Satto Chaupal S/o Rambharosh Chaupal R/o Village - Ahiyapur, P.S -
Bhalpatti, District - Darbhanga
3. Raj Kishore Chaupal S/o Kardhan Chaupal R/o Village - Chikni, P.S - Sonki,
District - Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3405 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suman Kumari Singh
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3772 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar
Mr. Ankit Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 As both these bail applications have cropped up
from the same police station case number, hence, with consent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3405 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
of parties, they are being heard together and disposed of by this
common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
3. The petitioners apprehends their arrest in
connection with Sonki P.S. Case No.95 of 2025, dated
03.07.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
140(2), 143(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is of active
involvement in selling and purchase of eight months old child.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in
the present case. Referring to the statement of the informant,
who is the mother of the victim, recorded under Section 183 of
the BNSS, he submits that the complicity of the petitioners has
not transpired therefrom. It is further submitted that specific
allegations have been made against Sonelal Mahto in connection
with the incident, who has already been granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioners in Cr.
Misc. No. 3405 of 2026 have no criminal antecedents, whereas
the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 3772 of 2026 have one criminal
antecedent, which has been lodged on similar allegations, and in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3405 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
which they are on bail.
6. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State
has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
7. Taking into account that the informant has not
alleged anything incriminating against these petitioners, let the
above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of six weeks from today, 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 A.C.J.M.- IX,
Darbhanga/ Successor Court in connection with Sonki P.S. Case
No.95 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/ known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/ personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3405 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U
Checking your session…