Patna High Court
Kasish RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, finding no sufficient basis to deny bail to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, two sisters from Gaya, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Civil Line PS‑282/2023) alleging offences under IPC sections 354‑B, 506 and 509, IT Act sections 66(c) and 66(d) and POCSO Act section 14(1). The FIR alleged that their brother Anuraj used their mobile phones to circulate obscene images of a girl named Princy, a relative of the informant, and that the sisters were implicated despite not being named in the FIR. The petitioners contended they were unaware of Anuraj’s actions, that the allegations were vague, and that the informant had omitted material facts. The State and the informant opposed the bail, but could not refute the petitioners’ claim of lack of participation. The Court, applying its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, granted anticipatory bail subject to a cash bond and sureties, directing release if arrested within six weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are liable to be arrested under the offences alleged in the FIR.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 482(2) of the BNSS despite the serious nature of the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 354-B, 506, 509
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(c), 66(d)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 14(1)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC
- IT Act
- POCSO Act
- social media harassment
- obscene material
- section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76871 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2023 Thana- CIVIL LINE District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Kasish Raj D/O Jugal Kishore Prasad Resident of Village- Jalalpur, P.S.-
Roushanganj, District- Gaya
2. Kajal Kumari D/O Jugal Kishore Prasad Resident of Village- Jalalpur, P.S.-
Roushanganj, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Samita Kumari W/O Pankaj Kumar R/O Mohalla- Koiribari, P.S.- Civil
Line, Dist.- Gaya
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Pragya Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Usha Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 30-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Civil Line Police Station Case No. 282 of 2023, dated
25.04.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 354-B,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76871 of 2025(4) dt.30-04-2026
2/5
506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 66(c) and 66(D)
of the I. T. Act and Section 14 (1) of the POCSO Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have antecedent of one case and are women and the
informant alleges that she is a make up artist and does bridal
make up and posts on her Instagram ID, further on 24.04.2023
she received a call on her mobile from mobile no. 6389104245
and the caller disclosed that her number was obtained from her
Instagram account, next alleges that her follower messaged that
request is coming to her from informant’s fake Instagram ID in
which photo of a girl whose bridal make up was done by her
also features along with some obscene photographs, further
brother of the girl whose picture is on the fake ID had received
threat from mobile no. 7281858183 saying the picture would be
made viral, thus, alleges that from her fake Instagram ID, her
family members and customers are being harassed, hence, the
fake ID be closed after deleting the video.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that petitioners are not named in the FIR. It
is further submitted that one Princy, who is maternal niece of the
informant, was having friendship with Anuraj Kumar. It is next
submitted that when the said relationship came to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76871 of 2025(4) dt.30-04-2026
3/5
knowledge of the family members of Princy, the brother of
Princy went to the house of Anuraj and ridiculed him which
offended Anuraj. It is next submitted that Anuraj by using the
mobile of his sisters who are petitioners in the instant case
viraled some pictures of Princy. It is further submitted that from
perusal of the allegation as alleged in the instant FIR, it would
manifest that the same is vague and cryptic. It is also submitted
that informant was aware that Princy who is daughter of her
own sister, Sarita, was being harassed by Anuraj and Anuraj had
viraled her pictures, but then informant tried to implicate the
entire family members of Anuraj. It is also submitted that no
doubt during the course of investigation, it transpired that the
mobile from which the pictures went viral of Princy and the
informant belongs to the petitioners, but then it is submitted that
no prudent person would use her own mobile for committing an
occurrence and thus would create evidence against herself and
hence would get implicated, it is submitted that petitioners were
completely unaware that their brother, Anuraj, would commit
such an occurrence. It is further submitted that Anuraj had
approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 77801 of 2025 and the same came
to be allowed by an order dated 09.04.2026 passed by a learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76871 of 2025(4) dt.30-04-2026
4/5
Co-ordinate Bench. It is also submitted that mother of Princy
also instituted an FIR being Civil Line P.S. Case No. 423 of
2023 against Anuraj and petitioners, it is thus submitted that
even informant of the instant case being own sister of mother of
Princy was aware of the misdeeds being committed by Anuraj,
but then for reasons best known chose not to disclose the same
in the instant FIR.
5. The learned APP for the State as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioners, but are not in a
position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners that Princy and Anuraj
were knowing each other and brother of Princy had objected the
relationship, on account of which Anuraj committed the
occurrence by using the mobile of his sisters.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
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 Civil
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76871 of 2025(4) dt.30-04-2026
5/5
Line Police Station Case No. 282 of 2023 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…