Patna High Court
Ramesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court denied the anticipatory bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Yadav, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a case (PS Case No. 201 of 2024) involving offences under sections 137(2), 96, 143, 98, 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. The FIR was lodged by informant Manjula Devi based on allegations that a flood‑displaced woman, Chandni Kumari, mentioned the petitioner in her complaints. The petitioner argued that the allegations were solely against Chandni Kumari and that he was implicated only because her name was mentioned. The prosecution, through the APP, alleged that the petitioner operated rented rooms where groups of girls were brought at night and sent away in the morning, suggesting a possible role in the missing daughter of the informant. After considering the submissions and the Sessions Judge’s investigation report, the Court found the allegations sufficient to deny bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations under sections 137(2), 96, 143, 98, 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement in operating rented rooms for girls warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 137(2), 143, 3(5), 61(2), 96, 98
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR
- BNS
- sections 137, 96, 143, 98, 61, 3
- alleged trafficking
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90577 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-201 Year-2024 Thana- SONBERSHA RAJ District- Saharsa
======================================================
Ramesh Yadav Son of Gangaram Yadav R/o Village Mehasimar, Ward No. 11,
Singiawan, P.S.- Kishanpur, District - Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinkar Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Sonbersa Raj P.S. Case No. 201 of 2024 for the
offence under sections 137(2), 96, 143, 98, 61(2) and 3(5) of the
BNS lodged on 10.11.2024 by the informant, Manjula Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that one Chandni Kumari with a small child came complaining
that her house has been washed away in flood and has no shelter
as the husband lives outside. In that background, she was
allowed to work as maid but on 10.11.2024, she left the place
alongwith her minor child. The informant alleged that she
always used to talk about the petitioner herein. This led to the
FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90577 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/2
admittedly, the entire allegation is against the lady Chandni
Kumari and only because she used to take the name of the
petitioner, he got implicated.
5. Learned APP, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh on the
other hand has taken this Court to the learned Sessions Judge
order to show that this petitioner is having some rooms where
ten to fifteen girls are brought somewhere in the night and then
sent in the morning. As such, the missing of the informant’s
daughter who was taken away by Chandni Kumari, the role of
the petitioner cannot be excluded.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
taking note of the investigation as recorded in learned Sessions
Judge order where allegation against this petitioner is of using
rented rooms where girls come and leave in the morning, in that
background, it would be appropriate that he seeks bail.
7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…