Indu Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51621 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2025 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

Indu Devi W/o Ganesh Ray R/o Village- Lucky Nandlalpur, PS- Turki, District- Muzaffarpur 2.

Tannu Kumari W/O Sachin Kumar R/o Village- Lucky Nandlalpur, PSTurki, District- Muzaffarpur 3.

Sachin Kumar S/O Ganesh Ray R/o Village- Lucky Nandlalpur, PS- Turki, District- Muzaffarpur 4.

Rina Devi W/O Manoj Kumar Ray R/O Village- Madhopur susta, PS-Sadar, Distt-Muzaffarpur 5.

Manoj Kumar Ray @ Manoj Ray S/O Punit Ray R/O Village- Madhopur susta, PS-Sadar, Distt-Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yugal Kishore For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dinesh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 87 of the B.N.S.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 are mother, Bhabhi and brother of Sunny and petitioner nos.4 and 5 are mother in-law and father in-law of

2/4 petitioner no.3 i.e. brother of Sunny. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the informant alleges that her minor daughter aged about 14 years had gone to school to fill-up form, but did not return, hence alleged that her daughter was kidnapped by unknown accused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR was against unknown and during the course of investigation, the name of the petitioners transpired after recovery of the victim from Assam. It is next submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. at Assam wherein she stated that the petitioners were pressurizing her to marry Sunny and she disclosed the said fact to her mother. Further, on 15.02.2025, the accused persons took her to Muzaffarpur Bus Stand and got her seated with Sunny for performing marriage at Tinsukiya. Thereafter, Sunny took her to the rented house of Manoj Rai (petitioner no.4), who had come to receive them. Further, she was convened in a room and the accused persons were pressurizing her to marry and when she refused, she was tortured. However, Sunny did not establish physical relation. It is submitted that thereafter her statement was recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. is similar to her

3/4 statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. except to the extent that in her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the victim alleges that accused Birendra and Anuradha took her to a fair and from where she was brought to Bairia Bus Stand, further that she made a call from mobile of Sunny to her mother based on which she was recovered from Assam.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners, being related to Sunny, have been falsely implicated in the instant case during the course of investigation based on the statement made by the victim. It is submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that as why parents, brothers and in-laws of Sachin would have indulged in the occurrence of kidnapping for the purposes of marrying the victim, a minor with Sunny, who is also a minor. It is submitted that since victim and Sunny were in love, as such, they eloped and the entire family members came to be implicated subsequently.

6. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on

4/4 anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Muzaffarpur in connection with Sadar P. S. Case No.111 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

8. The application stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T