Sindhu Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24022 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-781 Year-2025 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.
Sindhu Devi W/O Sanjay Singh R/O Village- Paunihasanpur, P.S- Vaishali, Distt.- Vaishali.
2.
Sanjay Singh S/O Vikas Singh R/O Village- Paunihasanpur, P.S- Vaishali, Distt.- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Prakash Chandra Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Bharat Lal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No.781 of 2025, F.I.R dated 29.10.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 93, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, on the written application dated 29.10.2025 submitted by the informant, Sanjay Thakur, alleging that on 26.10.2025 at about 9:00 p.m., his 16-year-old daughter, Neha Kumari, went outside the house and did not return. Despite extensive search, she could not be
2/4 traced, and the informant subsequently learnt that Deepak Kumar, along with others, had allegedly kidnapped her. When the informant approached the house of Deepak Kumar, his parents allegedly abused him and stated that his daughter would not be returned. It is further alleged that Jitendra Kumar Thakur, Sunaina Devi, Prince Kumar, and Vikash Kumar were also involved in the occurrence. The informant also disclosed the mobile number of Deepak Kumar and stated that the FIR was lodged with some delay due to the continuous search for his daughter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to order dated 03.06.2026, the statement of victim recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. has been produced and from perusal of the same, it appears that the victim was in love with one Deepak Kumar, who happens to be the son of the petitioners, who are the mother and father of the co-accused Deepak Kumar. It has further been stated by the victim that she was in love with Deepak Kumar for the last three (03) years and has consummated marriage with him in the month of October itself and is presently four months pregnant. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioners have clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
3/4 anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. in which there is no imputation as against these petitioners and the victim has consummated marriage with Deepak Kumar in the month of October itself is presently pregnant with a child of four months and the petitioners have clean antecedent. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their 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) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-V, Vaishali at Hazipur, in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No.781 of 2025, subject to the 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) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
4/4 (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) sharun/- U T