Patna High Court
Mosmat Uma Devi @ Musmat Uma DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court allowed anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to conditions, as there was no specific allegation of an overt act against them.
Summary
Mosmat Uma Devi and Mahesh Yadav sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case where the informant alleged that his minor daughter eloped with Arun Yadav, who is the son and brother of the petitioners. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, being close relatives of Arun Yadav, aided the elopement and obstructed investigation. The petitioners contended they had no knowledge of the elopement, the victim later testified that she went voluntarily, and they have clean antecedents. The State opposed bail, claiming the petitioners were complicit and had concealed the victim’s whereabouts. The Court, noting the victim’s recovery, lack of specific overt act against the petitioners, and the victim’s statement, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS, directing verification of the victim’s statement and imposing surety and appearance requirements. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC when there is no specific allegation of an overt act against the petitioners.
- Whether the petitioners’ alleged relationship with the alleged perpetrator warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the victim’s voluntary statement and recovery affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 3(5), 351(2), 96
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
- elopement
- victim statement
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85330 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2025 Thana- SRINAGAR District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Mosmat Uma Devi @ Musmat Uma Devi W/o Late Madan Yadav R/o
Village - Ranaha Ghorahiya, P.S - Sirisiya, District - West Champaran
2. Mahesh Yadav @ Muklesh Yadav S/o Late Madan Yadav R/o Village -
Ranaha Ghorahiya, P.S - Sirisiya, District - West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap, Adv.
For the informant Mr. Mayank Mohon, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Zainul Abedin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Srinagar P.S. Case No. 185 of 2025 dated 30.07.2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96,
351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that his minor daughter had gone to attend the call of
nature and it is alleged that the co-accused namely Arun Yadav
made her sit on a motorcycle and both fled away. It has further
been alleged that when the informant went to the house of Arun
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85330 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/4
Yadav, his mother and brother (petitioners) abused him and
threatened him to go away.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this
case and they have no concern whatsoever with the elopement of
the informant’s daughter with the said Arun Yadav, who happens
to be the son and brother of the petitioners respectively. It has
further been submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is a widow and the
petitioner no. 2 is her son and they were not aware of the
elopement of the said Arun Yadav along with the victim. It has
further been submitted that when the impugned order was passed,
the victim was traceless but the victim has been traced and her
statement has been recorded by the police wherein she has not
alleged any specific overt act against these petitioners and she has
also stated that she had gone with Arun Yadav out of her own
sweet will. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioners have
clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that these
petitioners were hand in gloves with the said Arun Yadav and they
had deliberately not disclosed the whereabouts of the victim and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85330 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/4
despite being given chance to trace the victim along with their son
and brother respectively, they did not help in investigation and
therefore the bail application should not be entertained.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the
parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case that the victim has been recovered and there is no specific
allegation of overt act against these petitioners, the petitioners
above named, are directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of four weeks from today, 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 Court below where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with Shrinagar
P.S. Case No. 185 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of BNSS as well as subject to the
following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial and
shall cooperate in the investigation.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85330 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/4
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioners
will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent
of the petitioners and in case, at any stage, it is found that the
petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the trial
court shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bonds of
the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of
the above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or
in the name of verification.
7. Learned trial court is directed to first verify the
factum of the recovery of the victim and shall also verify whether
the statement of the victim was recorded by the police and the
magistrate, if any, before accepting the bail.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
9. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…