Patna High Court
Ramawati DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
Ramawati Devi and Chandeshwar Prasad Singh sought anticipatory bail after learning that they might be arrested in a case registered under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for the alleged abduction of a girl by a person named Saurabh. They contended that they have clean antecedents, that the FIR was lodged four days after the alleged incident without justification, and that they were falsely implicated by the informant, who is the victim’s mother and the petitioners’ relative. The petitioners relied on a Supreme Court order in Nidhi Kumari v. State of Bihar (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 589 of 2025) which granted protection to the minor victim and her next friend, Saurabh, and the State did not oppose the reliance on that order. The High Court examined the submissions and, noting the lack of substantive evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged offence, exercised its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the BNSS to grant anticipatory bail. The bail was conditioned on furnishing bonds of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties each and on surrendering within six weeks if arrested.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in the present circumstances
- Whether the Supreme Court order in Nidhi Kumari v. State of Bihar is relevant to the petitioners' claim for bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 137(2), 482(2), 87
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 482
- false implication
- delay in FIR
- Article 32
- minor protection
- abduction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42742 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2025 Thana- Piplawa District- Patna
======================================================
1. Ramawati Devi W/o Uday Sharma R/o Village- Sadisopur, Khaspur, P.S.-
Naubatpur, District- Patna
2. Chandeshwar Prasad Singh S/o Late Rajaram Singh R/o Village- Sadisopur,
Khaspur, P.S.- Naubatpur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 27-04-2026 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 137(2) and
87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that her daughter on 31-3-2025 in between 12:30 PM to
1 PM left her house on pretext of buying articles but then did
not return, accordingly a search was made when it transpired
that Saurabh had abducted her daughter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42742 of 2025(6) dt.27-04-2026
2/3
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant, being mother and maternal-uncle of Saurabh. It
is next submitted that the date of occurrence is 31-3-2025 and
the FIR came to be instituted on 4-4-2025, i.e., after a delay of
four days without any plausible explanation. It is further
submitted that Saurabh and the victim were known to each other
and thus have gone to Delhi.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amresh
Kumar Sinha, produces an order dated 18-6-2025 in Writ
Petition(s) Civil No. 589 of 2025 (Nidhi Kumari vs. the State of
Bihar & Ors.) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, submitting that
the said writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, wherein Nidhi Kumari had alleged that
she was forcibly married to the respondent no. 4 despite she
being a minor and her parents were not supporting her and
respondent No. 4 and his family members are now pursuing her
and her next friend, as such the aforesaid writ petition was filed.
It is next submitted that Nidhi is the victim of the instant case. It
is further submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted
protection to Nidhi and her next friend, who is Saurabh.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State, after perusing the
order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, does not oppose.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42742 of 2025(6) dt.27-04-2026
3/3
7. 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. 5,000/- (Rupees Five 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 Piplawan P.S. Case No. 59 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
8. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18-
6-2025 in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No. 589 of 2025 is kept on
record.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…