Patna High Court
Sita KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the allegations of kidnapping and sexual exploitation of a minor were deemed serious and supported by the victim’s statement.
Summary
The petitioner, Sita Kumari, applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging kidnapping and sexual exploitation of a minor under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution’s FIR states that the petitioner, along with co‑accused, abducted the informant’s daughter and that the victim, a minor, gave a statement under Section 183 of the BNSS implicating the petitioner and describing sexual exploitation by another accused. The petitioner contended that she is a neighbour, has not committed any offence, and that the parties have reached a compromise. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the minor status of the victim, and the recorded statement under Section 183 BNSS. Concluding that the allegations are grave and the victim’s testimony is substantive, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged kidnapping and sexual exploitation of a minor under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act
- Whether the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS precludes the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183, 3(5), 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- sexual exploitation
- minor
- POCSO Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68424 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2025 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Sita Kumari D/O Birendra Mahto @ Virendra Mahto Resident of Village-
Sugaw dih, P.O and P.S- Sugauli, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Lal Mati Devi W/O Rakesh Mahto R/O Village- Sugawdih, P.O and P.S-
Sugauli, Distt.- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
5 25-02-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,
arises out of Sugauli Police Station Case No. 151 of 2025,
disclosing offences under Sections 96 and 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information
Report, is that on 30.03.2025, the informant went to sleep after
taking dinner. When she woke up, did not find his daughter. On
inquiry, the informant got knowledge that the petitioner and
other accused persons, kidnapped her minor daughter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68424 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026
2/2
petitioner is a lady and neighbour of the informant and has not
committed any offence as alleged. The parties have entered into
compromise.
5. Learned counsel for the State referring to the case
diary submits the statement of the victim girl was recorded
under Section 183 BNSS in which she has supported the
prosecution story and has explained the active role played by the
petitioner in her kidnapping and the victim has also stated that
she was sexually exploited by the co-accused, Aanand Kumar in
a room.
6. Regards being had to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that
victim is minor and the statement of victim recorded under
Section 183 BNSS, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner
privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.