Urmila Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49707 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2023 Thana- BATHNAHA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1.

Urmila Devi Wife of Lal Bihari Sada Village- Rupauli, Ps- Bathnaha, DistSitamarhi 2.

Nitish Kumar son of Lal Bihari Sada Village- Rupauli, Ps- Bathnaha, DistSitamarhi 3.

Dinanath Sada Son of Udit Sada Village- Rupauli, Ps- Bathnaha, DistSitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammed Arif, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 363,370/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 14 of the Child Labour Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioners took informant's minor son with him for providing him work at Madras and handed him over to a contractor. Later on, when informant was not able to contact his son, he met petitioner no.3 but petitioner no.3 did not give satisfactory reply. It is alleged that when informant's husband inquired about his son from petitioner no.1, she misbehaved with him. Informant suspects that her son has been sold to someone by these accused persons.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that as a matter of fact, informant's son had gone to the house of his maternal house and in a planned conspiracy this false case has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49707 of 2025(3) dt.22-09-2025 2/2 been lodged by informant against the petitioners. Parties are gotia and there was some dispute between them since long. Son of informant himself returned to his house from the house of his maternal uncle. Due to intervention of well wishers, dispute has been resolved and compromise petition to this effect has also been filed in the court below. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, prayer for bail of all these petitioners is allowed. In the event of arrest/surrender within eight weeks from today, let these petitioners, mentioned above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Sitamarhi in Bathnaha Police Station Case No. 76 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T