Patna High Court
Shobhlal Mahto @ Shobha LalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, finding no sufficient ground to deny bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Shobhlal Mahto and Pooja Devi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under several provisions of the B.N.S. Act, 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, alleging they were falsely implicated in a kidnapping‑rape incident involving a minor. They argued that the alleged offence occurred on 29‑Oct‑2024, the victim returned on 2‑Nov‑2024, yet the complaint was only filed on 23‑Nov‑2024 and the FIR on 1‑Dec‑2024, raising doubts about the prosecution’s case. They also contended that the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS was recorded under parental pressure and that they had no familial link to the accused Satyam. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the timeline and false‑implication claims. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties, invoking its powers under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S. Act. The order released the petitioners from arrest for six weeks pending further proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the serious allegations under the B.N.S. Act, 2023 and the POCSO Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the complaint and FIR, and the alleged pressure on the victim’s statement, warrant a finding of false implication.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. Act, 2023 — s. 137(2), 183, 351(2), 351(3), 482(2), 61(2), 96
- POCSO Act — s. 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- kidnapping
- rape
- minor
- POCSO Act
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44435 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-887 Year-2024 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Shobhlal Mahto @ Shobha Lal S/o Ganesh Prasad R/o Village- Hansari, PS-
Shikarpur, Dist- West Champaran
2. Pooja Devi W/o Gopal Agrawal R/o vill- Bhiwani, P.S.- Bhiwani, Distt.-
Bhiwani (Hariyana)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sikandra Mahto S/o Rameshwar Mahto R/o vill - Chegauna, P.S.- Shikarpur,
Distt.- West champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 16-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned APP for the State.
2. No one appears on behalf of the informant.
3. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2), 96,
137(2), 351(2) and 351(3) of B.N.S. Act, 2023 & Section 4 of
the POCSO Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no.
2 is a woman and the informant alleges that Satyam, on pretext
of making inappropriate video of the minor aged about 14 years
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44435 of 2025(5) dt.16-02-2026
2/4
viral, committed rape, thereafter on 29.10.2024 Satyam with the
help of Kishan and Bittu kidnapped his minor niece and took
her to Ghaziabad, on search Chandan disclosed that Satyam has
taken his daughter for purpose of marriage and has kept her in
the house of his aunt at Haryana, accordingly informant reached
the house of Shobha Lal where Sonu, Kishan and Bittu were
present from before, further alleges that in kidnapping Satyam
was helped by Rinki and Chotan.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that the date of occurrence is
29.10.2024 and the victim came back on 02.11.2024, thereafter
on 23.11.2024, a complaint case was instituted based on which
the instant F.I.R. came to be instituted on 01.12.2024, it is thus
submitted that if the date of occurrence is 29.10.2024, then why
the informant did not institute any complaint case or an F.I.R.
after the occurrence, as from perusal of the complaint, it would
manifest that complainant alleges that date of occurrence is
29.10.2024 the victim came back on 02.11.2024 and thereafter
he along with the victim went to the police station for instituting
an F.I.R. but when police did not institute the F.I.R., the
complaint case was instituted on 23.11.2024. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44435 of 2025(5) dt.16-02-2026
3/4
submitted that in sum and substance the case of kidnapping was
instituted after the victim returned, which casts an aspersion on
the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that the
statement of the victim was recorded under section 183 BNSS
wherein she supported the case of the prosecution, but then the
same was recorded under parental pressure. It is also submitted
that petitioner no. 1 is not related to Satyam or his family in any
manner and petitioner no. 2 is aunt of Satyam who stays at
Haryana. It is also submitted that thrust of allegation is against
Satyam. It is also submitted that Vikesh Kumar along with Sonu
had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18416 of 2025 and the same came
to be allowed by an order dated 15.05.2025.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners, but then is not in a position
to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that no case came to be instituted after
the victim is alleged to have been kidnapped rather a complaint
case was instituted after the victim returned.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44435 of 2025(5) dt.16-02-2026
4/4
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
trial court where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Shikarpur P.S. Case No.887 of 2024, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
8. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application is allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…