Chanda Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9063 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2024 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.
Chanda Devi W/o- Umesh Ram Village- Fatu Chhapar, P.S. Kateya, DistrictGopalganj 2.
Urmila Devi W/o- Harikesh Ram Village- Fatu Chhapar, P.S. Kateya, District- Gopalganj 3.
Bebi Devi wife of Ashok Ram Village- Fatu Chhapar, P.S. Kateya, DistrictGopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Suman Devi W/o- Jairam Ram Village- Fatu Chhapar, P.S. Kateya, DistrictGopalganj ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vyas Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-06-2025 Heard Mr. Vyas Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner are apprehending their arrest in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 78 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 11.03.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that one Suman Ram kidnapped her daughter and she suspects the involvement of these petitioners in kidnapping of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9063 of 2025(4) dt.16-06-2025 2/3 her daughter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that the victim was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C/183 B.N.S.S in which she has not supported the case of the prosecution and she has not stated the name of the petitioners.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners. He further submits that petitioner no.1 has got one criminal antecedent in which she is on bail and petitioner nos.2 and 3 have clean antecedent.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Gopalganj in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 78 of 2024, subject to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9063 of 2025(4) dt.16-06-2025 3/3 conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond 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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T