Patna High Court
Arti Devi @ Arati DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The anticipatory bail petition is rejected.
Summary
Arti Devi was named in an FIR for offences under Sections 137(2) and 96 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, relating to the alleged kidnapping and sexual exploitation of a minor daughter of an informant. The victim, recovered after a delay, gave statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, identifying the petitioner as the mastermind and alleging forced illicit intercourse. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing the FIR was lodged 21 days after recovery, the victim refused medical examination, and the matter was compromised. The State contended the offence is non‑compoundable, the victim’s statements are consistent, and the minor’s age makes the allegations serious. The Court, after considering the victim’s statements and the nature of the offence, rejected the anticipatory bail petition and directed the trial court to decide regular bail upon surrender.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner in view of the victim’s statements under BNSS.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the victim’s refusal to undergo medical examination affect the bail application.
- Whether the alleged offence is non‑compoundable and thus precludes any compromise.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedents are sufficient to merit anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 180, 183
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 96
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- non‑compoundable offence
- delay in FIR
- victim statement
- minor victim
- sexual exploitation
- BN S
- BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36264 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2024 Thana- KATHAIYA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Arti Devi @ Arati Devi, D/o Kailash Khalifa, R/o Village-Nadel, P.S.- Bakhri,
District- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anshu Dhar Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and
apprehending her arrest in connection with Kathaiya P.S.
Case No.200 of 2024 registered under Sections 137(2) and
96 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘B.N.S.’).
3. As per FIR, the minor daughter of informant aged
about 15 years found missing since 03.09.2024, where
informant received a call on 21.09.2024, at about 1.30 a.m.
from mobile No.8789169100 from her missing daughter, as
she was kept in village-Islampur and while she was explaining
the details, the mobile was switched off suddenly.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36264 of 2025(5) dt.13-01-2026
2/4
petitioner that the present FIR was lodged with delay of 21
days after recovery of the victim. It is pointed out that after
recovery, the statement of victim was recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’). Contradicting the aforesaid
statement of victim, it is pointed out that same falsify the
case of prosecution on its face for the reason that while
recording her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, the
victim categorically stated that she was kept in Islampur for
two and half months but she was recovered only after 21 days
of the occurrence. It is further pointed out that the victim has
refused to join medical examination and also she failed to
support the occurrence in Sessions Trial No.111 of 2025 qua
another apprehended co-accused namely, Gita Devi. It is also
pointed out that the matter now compromised between the
parties. The petitioner claimed clean antecedent.
5. Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, learned APP
appearing for the State while opposing the prayer of bail
submitted that the victim has categorically stated name of this
petitioner while recording her statement under Section 183 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36264 of 2025(5) dt.13-01-2026
3/4
the BNSS that she is the master mind of the entire racket. It
is pointed out that the petitioner forced victim to illicit
intercourse with another persons, where around 10-20 people
subjected illicit intercourse with her while she was in captivity
with petitioner. It is pointed out that this fact also supported
during investigation while recording statement of victim under
Section 180 and 183 of the BNSS. Learned APP further
submitted that non-joining of medical examination does not
lead to conclusion ipso facto that the victim was not
seduced/forced for illicit intercourse as stated and there is no
discrepancies or contradictions qua occurrence. It is further
submitted by learned APP that difference in time period is not
a major factor to disbelieve the entire allegation, as stated by
victim who was minor even below 15 years on the date of
occurrence, as her date of birth was 09.04.2009.
6. Arguing further, learned APP submitted that the
offfence alleged non-compoundable in nature and, therefore,
the compromise as submitted by learned counsel is of no
bearing as far merit of this case is concerned and
furthermore, the deposition of victim in Sessions Trial No.111
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36264 of 2025(5) dt.13-01-2026
4/4
of 2025 is also of no bearing as same was deposed qua
another co-accused namely, Gita Devi.
7. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact, as victim after recovery, specifically stated
against this petitioner as a master-mind of entire racket and
forced her to illicit intercourse with another persons while she
was in captivity while recording her statement under Section
183 of the BNSS and also under Section 180 of the BNSS,
accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner
stands rejected.
8. Learned Trial Court is directed to decide the
regular bail of the petitioner on surrender/arrest in
accordance with law without being prejudice by this order.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…