Patna High Court
Sugandhi Devi @ Muskan KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that, in the absence of prima facie evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged kidnapping, they are entitled to bail.
Summary
The petitioners, three women, were named in an FIR alleging kidnapping of a 16‑year‑old girl for illicit intercourse or marriage, under sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. They contended that the allegations arose from a neighbourhood dispute and that the victim’s statements recorded under sections 180 and 183 of the BNS did not name them, indicating she had voluntarily married another person. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, but the court observed that the victim had failed to provide any prima facie evidence linking the petitioners to the crime. Consequently, the court directed that the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNS. The order reflects the court’s view that the prosecution’s case against the petitioners is weak at the initial stage.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners should be granted bail despite the FIR and charges under BNS and POCSO statutes.
- Whether the victim’s statements under sections 180 and 183 of the BNS constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to justify continued detention.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 482(2), 61(2), 96
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6, 8
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- POCSO
- BNS
- false implication
- prima facie
- criminal procedure
- women accused
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40060 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2026 Thana- PIPRA District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Sugandhi Devi @ Muskan Kumari, Wife of Pratap Paswan,
2. Krishna Devi, wife of Ajit Paswan,
3. Shivkali Devi, Wife of Late Shankar Paswan,
All are Resident of village- Chintamanpur Khas Tola, P.S.- Pipra, Dist- East
Champaran Motihari
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X, Son of Y, Resident of village- Chintamanpur Khas Tola, P.S.- Pipra, Dist-
East Champaran, Motihari
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhandev Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The accused/petitioners are named in the FIR
and apprehending their arrest in connection with Pipra P.S.
Case No.39 of 2026 registered under Sections 137(2), 96,
61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNS’)
as well as Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act.
3. As per FIR, which was lodged on the basis of
complaint case bearing No.124 of 2025 as filed before
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40060 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
2/3
learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-POCSO Court No.-7,
East Champaran, Motihari that all petitioners under
conspiracy kidnapped the minor daughter of
informant/complainant, aged about 16 years for the purpose
of illicit intercourse/marriage with another person.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
petitioners that out of neighbourhood dispute and
differences, the petitioners were implicated by
complainant/informant falsely, which can be gathered from
the statement of victim as recorded under Sections 180 and
183 of the BNSS, which appears available under paragraph
nos. 11 and 12 of the case diary, where she categorically
stated that out of love, she solemnized marriage with one
Pintu Yadav and was living in Delhi and while she was
returning to her matrimonial home, she was arrested by the
police. It is submitted that the victim while recording her
statement under Section 183 of the BNSS failed to name
these petitioners, who are ladies of clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40060 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
3/3
taking note of fact as prima facie victim has failed to suggest
any involvement of these petitioners with crime in question,
while recording her statement under Sections 180 and 183
of the BNSS, accordingly, all above-named petitioners, who
are ladies of clean antecedent, in the event of their arrest or
surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks,
are directed to be released 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
VIIth District and Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, POCSO Act, East Champaran, Motihari in connection
with Pipra P.S. Case No.39 of 2026, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
CrPC/under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.