Neetu Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34669 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2022 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Neetu Devi Wife Of Deepu Paswan R/O Village- Deo Kuli, Ps- Rampur Chauram, District- Arwal, At Present Ganga Nagar Colony, Rupaspur, P.S.- Rupaspur, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kaushal Kishor, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pushpa Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 04-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 105 of 2022, lodged on 05.03.2022, under Sections 363 & 365 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution, F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner alleging that she fled away with the informant's daughter. Upon being questioned, the petitioner denied the allegation, and when the victim girl could not be found despite a search, the present F.I.R. was lodged by the victim's father.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the petitioner is a lady, aged about 25 years.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34669 of 2025(2) dt.04-06-2025 2/2 Counsel further submits that the victim girl has been recovered, and it has come out during the investigation that she had gone with one Raushan Kumar. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 22.01.2025 and is ready to comply with any condition that may be imposed upon her.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that, in the rejection order of the Sessions Court, it has been acknowledged that the recovered victim, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., categorically stated that it was the petitioner who took away the victim to Jalandhar after seducing her to dance in a Arkestra but she refused to do so and any how she fled away and reached from Jalandhar to Patna.
6. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail after the framing of charge.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U T