Patna High Court
SEEMA DEVIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, four women related to the Sahani family, were named in an FIR for alleged kidnapping and other offences under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act. The alleged victim later recovered and, in her statement, denied that the petitioners were involved in the kidnapping or any sexual assault. The petitioners applied for anticipatory bail, arguing they have clean antecedents and were not named by the victim. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the charges. The Court, noting the victim’s denial and the petitioners’ clean record, ordered that they be released on bail if they surrender within four weeks, subject to a bail bond and sureties, invoking Sections 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The order effectively grants anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and related statutes
- Whether the victim’s denial of kidnapping and sexual assault negates the basis for continued detention
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 137(2), 3(5), 352, 438(2), 482(2), 61(2), 76, 96
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 8
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)va
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- sexual assault
- women defendants
- clean antecedent
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38697 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-579 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
Champaran
======================================================
1. SEEMA DEVI Wife of Chait Sahani Resident of Village- Kataha, P.S.-
Motihari Muffasil, District- East Champaran.
2. Shanti Devi Wife of Suresh Sahani Resident of Village- Kataha, P.S.-
Motihari Muffasil, District- East Champaran.
3. Babita Devi Wife of Indrajit Sahani @ Indrjeet Sahani Resident of Village-
Kataha, P.S.- Motihari Muffasil, District- East Champaran.
4. Kalawati Devi Wife of Tuntun Sahani @ Achelal Sahani @ Achhelal Sahani
Resident of Village- Kataha, P.S.- Motihari Muffasil, District- East
Champaran.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X Wife of- Y Resident of Village- Karha, P.S.- Muffasil, District- East
Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dewanand Tiwari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Usha Kumari 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP
for the State.
2. The accused-petitioners, named in the F.I.R., are
apprehending their arrest in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case
No. 579 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 61(2), 137(2), 96, 352, 3(5) of the
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’), sections
3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)va of the SC/ST Act and Section 8 of the POCSO
Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38697 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
2/3
3. As per FIR, petitioners alleged to kidnap the minor
daughter of the informant on the pretext that one Shanti Devi,
who was ill and getting her treatment at Muzaffarpur, wanted to
meet her daughter.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submitted that the daughter of the informant was in love with
co-accused Shubhlal Sahani, who is the brother of Seema Devi
(petitioner no.1). It is submitted that during course of
investigation, the victim recovered after 15 days, and while
recording her statement under section 183 of the B.N.S.S., she
says that she was kidnapped by some unknown persons without
naming these petitioners or even Shubhlal Sahani. There is no
allegation of sexual assault as well.
5. While concluding argument, learned counsel submitted
that petitioners are ladies of clean antecedent.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
7. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of the fact as the victim, after recovery, denied the
allegation of kidnapping and sexual assault against these
petitioners, coupled with the fact that all the four petitioners are
ladies of clean antecedent, accordingly, all the four above-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38697 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
3/3
named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a
period of four weeks from this order, are directed to be enlarged
on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand
only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge- 6th–
cum–Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO Act, East Champaran,
Motihari/concerned court in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case
No. 579 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.