Nandini Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24046 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== Nandini Devi W/o Rahul Kumar @ Dhuri Singh Resident of village- Nimi, PS- Sheikhopur Sarai, District- Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Manita Devi W/o Pawan Singh R/o vill- Nimi, P.s.- Sheikhopur Sarai, Distt.- Sheikhpura ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sheo Nandan Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-04-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 75, 76, 308(4), 352, 351(3), 3(5) BNS & Sections 2, 12 of POCSO Act and Sections 67(A) of I.T. Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and the informant alleges that petitioner used to call her minor daughter aged about 15 years to her house and Guddu used to molest her and petitioner secretly made videos of the occurrence. It is next alleged that petitioner demanded

2/4 Rs.50,000/- and threatened that if her demand was not fulfilled the video would be made viral. It is also alleged that petitioner used to coax the victim to steal money and jewellery from the house and when the victim girl refused to give money and jewellery, the petitioner made the video viral on 16.08.2024 and the same was seen by all on mobile. It is further alleged that Sangam Kumari, who is victim's friend had sent the video on informant's mobile phone.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner is Bhabhi of Guddu. It is further submitted that Guddu and victim were in love. It is next submitted that though there is allegation against the petitioner that she used to black-mail the victim and her family members on the strength of the video but then it is submitted that why the petitioner would have indulged in such activity when Guddu is her own brother-in-law. It is next submitted that petitioner was not even aware that victim was in relationship with Guddu. It is further submitted that no doubt the video went viral but then it might be a possibility that Guddu and the victim were making video of the act they were indulging in and subsequently either by mistake or deliberately the same was

3/4 made viral by Guddu. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation it has not come that video was made viral by the petitioner or by her mobile. It is further submitted that specific pleading has been made at para-13 of the anticipatory bail application that petitioner is carrying pregnancy. It is also submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will co-operate in the investigation to prove her innocence.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) 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 Sheikhpura Mahila P.S. Case No.27/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. However, it is made clear that in the event if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioner

4/4 despite giving assurance to this court is not co-operating in the investigation in that event the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

8. It is further made clear that if charge sheet is submitted connecting the petitioner with the offence, in that event, the present anticipatory bail order shall loose its effect. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T