Patna High Court
Sunita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to bail bonds and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
Sunita Devi and Prithvi Mahto, maternal grandparents of a youth named Bhanu, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 140(3), 87 and 3(5) of the BNS. They contended that the FIR, lodged on 21‑07‑2025, was filed more than ten days after the alleged incident of 11‑07‑2025, indicating a false and malicious prosecution. The victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS were inconsistent; the former did not support the prosecution while the latter alleged kidnapping by the petitioners, which the petitioners argued was made under parental pressure and lacked any allegation of physical exploitation. The State and the informant opposed anticipatory bail but could not refute the delay in filing the FIR or the contradictions in the victim’s statements. The Court, considering these submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners given the delay in filing the FIR and the contradictory victim statements.
- Whether the allegations of kidnapping against the petitioners constitute a cognizable offence warranting arrest.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) — s. 137(2), 140(3), 3(5), 87
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- delay in FIR
- false prosecution
- kidnapping allegation
- Section 180 BNSS
- Section 183 BNSS
- Section 482(2) BNSS
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62780 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2025 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Sunita Devi W/o Prithvi Mahto R/o vill - Choti Balha, P.S.- Mansi, Distt.-
Khagaria
2. Prithvi Mahto S/o Late Bhikho Mahto R/o vill - Choti Balha, P.S.- Mansi,
Distt.- Khagaria
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Md. Mumtaz Uddin, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
8 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the informant 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),
140(3), 87, 3(5) of BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and have been
falsely implicated in the instant case being maternal
grandparents of Bhanu. It is next submitted that Bhanu and the
victim were in love and they eloped. It is further submitted that
from perusal of the FIR it would manifest that the date of
occurrence is 11.07.2025 and the FIR came to be instituted on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62780 of 2025(8) dt.18-03-2026
2/4
21.07.2025 i.e., after a delay of more than ten days. It is further
submitted that even informant was aware that the victim was not
kidnapped or else the informant would have instituted an FIR
promptly. It is next submitted that the victim has come back and
her statement was recorded under Section 180 of BNSS and
under Section 183 of BNSS. It is further submitted that the
victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS has
not supported the case of the prosecution but then in her
statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has supported
the case of the prosecution and has stated that these petitioners
kidnapped her for the purposes of marrying Bhanu and
thereafter she was taken to Munger where Bhanu put vermilion
on her forehead and the accused persons did not allow her to
talk to anyone for six months and later she voluntarily came to
the SP Office, Khagaria. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that from perusal of her statement recorded
under Section 183 of BNSS it would manifest that though the
victim has stated that she was kidnapped by the accused persons
but then has not stated anything alleging that she was physically
exploited which amply demonstrates that under parental
pressure, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section
183 of BNSS when before the police, the victim has not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62780 of 2025(8) dt.18-03-2026
3/4
supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded
under Section 180 of BNSS. It is further submitted that
statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 of BNSS
and the statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS is
similar but then the only difference is that in her statement
recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, she has stated that
petitioners kidnapped her. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that it does not appear probable that maternal
grandparents would have kidnapped the victim for the purposes
of marrying their grandson. It is asserted and submitted that
Bhanu and victim were in love but in order to coerce Bhanu into
submission, a false case came to be instituted after a delay of ten
days.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioners but then are not in a position to rebut the submission
made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR was
instituted after a delay of ten days and that the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 180 of BNSS does not support
the case of the prosecution and her statement recorded under
Section 183 of BNSS is similar to the statement recorded under
Section 180 of BNSS but then the only difference is that in her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62780 of 2025(8) dt.18-03-2026
4/4
statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, she has stated
that petitioners kidnapped her.
5. 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. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 Mansi P.S. Case No. 179 of 2025 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…