Lalpari Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25204 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2018 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.
Lalpari Devi W/o Subash Yadav R/o vill - Betwaniya, P.S.- Kateya, Distt.- Gopalganj, Bihar 2.
Guddi Kumari D/o Subash Yadav R/o vill - Betwaniya, P.S.- Kateya, Distt.- Gopalganj, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Priya Raj For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pushpa Sinha.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 30-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363(a), 366(a), 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioners along with other accused persons are said to have kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case arises out of a complaint case which was subsequently sent for institution of the FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that there are a general and omnibus allegations on all the accused persons, especially on one Raj Kumar Yadav, that they had kidnapped the daughter of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25204 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026 2/3 the informant. It is further submitted that it would be apparent from the complaint itself that even after knowing about the said incident the complainant/informant waited for the next day morning to go to the police station to lodge an FIR. However, the incident is said to have taken place on 22.11.2017, the complaint was filed only on 28.11.2017 and no plausible explanation remains for the delay. It is further submitted that the main thrust of allegation is on co-accused Raj Kumar Yadav who has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court (Annexure-P/2) considering the entire merits of the case. The petitioners are the female members of the family, the petitioner no. 1 being the mother aged about 60 years and petitioner no. 2 being the sister of the main accused Raj Kumar Yadav. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that till date no coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and also considering that the main accused has been granted bail and these petitioners are female members of the family, let the above named petitioners in the event of their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25204 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026 3/3 arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 53 of 2018, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S., subject to the further condition that the petitioner would cooperate in the investigation/trial and if the petitioners do not cooperate in the investigation/trial, the prosecution would be at liberty to file application for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Soni Shrivastava, J) devendra/- U T