Sugandhi Devi @ Muskan Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40060 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2026 Thana- PIPRA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Sugandhi Devi @ Muskan Kumari, Wife of Pratap Paswan, 2.
Krishna Devi, wife of Ajit Paswan, 3.
Shivkali Devi, Wife of Late Shankar Paswan, All are Resident of village- Chintamanpur Khas Tola, P.S.- Pipra, Dist- East Champaran Motihari ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
X, Son of Y, Resident of village- Chintamanpur Khas Tola, P.S.- Pipra, DistEast Champaran, Motihari ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dhandev Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The accused/petitioners are named in the FIR and apprehending their arrest in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No.39 of 2026 registered under Sections 137(2), 96, 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNS') as well as Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
3. As per FIR, which was lodged on the basis of complaint case bearing No.124 of 2025 as filed before
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40060 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026 2/3 learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-POCSO Court No.-7, East Champaran, Motihari that all petitioners under conspiracy kidnapped the minor daughter of informant/complainant, aged about 16 years for the purpose of illicit intercourse/marriage with another person.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that out of neighbourhood dispute and differences, the petitioners were implicated by complainant/informant falsely, which can be gathered from the statement of victim as recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, which appears available under paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of the case diary, where she categorically stated that out of love, she solemnized marriage with one Pintu Yadav and was living in Delhi and while she was returning to her matrimonial home, she was arrested by the police. It is submitted that the victim while recording her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS failed to name these petitioners, who are ladies of clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40060 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026 3/3 taking note of fact as prima facie victim has failed to suggest any involvement of these petitioners with crime in question, while recording her statement under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, accordingly, all above-named petitioners, who are ladies of clean antecedent, in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks, are directed to be released 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 VIIth District and Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No.39 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the CrPC/under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) Sanjeet/- U T