Prabhu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71117 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2024 Thana- Tilakeshwar District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.
Prabhu Yadav S/o- Ramavritra Yadav @ Ram Briksha Yadav Resident of Village-Tilkeshwar P.S. Tilkeshwar Tilkapur, District-Darbhanga 2.
Bhushan Yadav @ Bhusan Kumar S/o- Prabhu Yadav Resident of VillageTilkeshwar P.S. Tilkeshwar Tilkapur, District-Darbhanga 3.
Samtoliya Devi W/o- Prabhu Yadav Resident of Village-Tilkeshwar P.S. Tilkeshwar Tilkapur, District-Darbhanga 4.
Bandhan Devi @ Bandhan Kumar W/o- Bhushan Yadav Resident of VillageTilkeshwar P.S. Tilkeshwar Tilkapur, District-Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Dhananjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari, APP Mr. Sanjay Parasmani, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-10-2025 1.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137, 96 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 has antecedent of two cases and petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 have antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that his daughter aged about 13 years was kidnapped by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71117 of 2025(2) dt.14-10-2025 2/3 Ramesh with an intent to rape and sell, accordingly the next day he went to the house of Prabhu, who said that his daughter would come back after 10-15 days but then his daughter did not return even after 10-15 days, hence the informant on 26-7-2024 again went to the house of Prabhu, but Prabhu along with Bhushan, Santoliya Devi and Bandhan Devi abused and assaulted them.
4.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case being father, brother, mother and bhabhi of Ramesh. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that his minor daughter was kidnapped by Ramesh with an intent to rape and sell but then the informant also alleges that he came to the house of Prabhu when Prabhu asked him to come after 10-15 days on which the informant waited knowing that his daughter has been kidnapped for the aforesaid purpose, which amply demonstrates the conduct of the informant. It is further submitted that the victim and Ramesh were in love and they eloped and the victim came back and was sent to remand home, which amply demonstrates that victim does not intend to stay with her parents.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71117 of 2025(2) dt.14-10-2025 3/3 5.
Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6.
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 trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Tilkeshwar P.S. Case No. 48 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T