Samitri Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19936 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2025 Thana- SRINAGAR District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Samitri Devi W/o Pundev Chaudhary @ Pundeo Chaudhary Resident of village - Bhagwanpur Ward No. 1, P.S - Nadi, District -West Champran 2.

Pundeo Chaudhary @ Pundev Chaudhary S/o Late Kanahi Chaudhary Resident of village - Bhagwanpur Ward No. 1, P.S - Nadi, District -West Champran 3.

Chhathu @ Chhadhu Chaudhary S/o Late Kanahi Chaudhary Resident of village - Bhagwanpur Ward No. 1, P.S - Nadi, District -West Champran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Niraj Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 303(2) and 351(2) of the B.N.S..

3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners, kidnapped minor daughter of informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. Petitioners have falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19936 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 2/2 implicated in this case merely because Petitioner No. 1 happens to be mother, Petitioner No. 2 happens to be father and Petitioner No. 3 happens to be uncle of co-accused Pawan Kumar. The present F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate delay of 22 days and there is no plausible explanation for the same which itself makes the entire prosecution case doubtful. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and there is specific accusation that they, along with other F.I.R. named accused persons, kidnapped minor daughter of informant. The victim is minor and still traceless.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence and the fact that the victim is still traceless, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T