Sita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68424 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2025 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Sita Kumari D/O Birendra Mahto @ Virendra Mahto Resident of VillageSugaw dih, P.O and P.S- Sugauli, Distt.- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Lal Mati Devi W/O Rakesh Mahto R/O Village- Sugawdih, P.O and P.SSugauli, Distt.- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Sugauli Police Station Case No. 151 of 2025, disclosing offences under Sections 96 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 30.03.2025, the informant went to sleep after taking dinner. When she woke up, did not find his daughter. On inquiry, the informant got knowledge that the petitioner and other accused persons, kidnapped her minor daughter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68424 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026 2/2 petitioner is a lady and neighbour of the informant and has not committed any offence as alleged. The parties have entered into compromise.
5. Learned counsel for the State referring to the case diary submits the statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 183 BNSS in which she has supported the prosecution story and has explained the active role played by the petitioner in her kidnapping and the victim has also stated that she was sexually exploited by the co-accused, Aanand Kumar in a room.
6. Regards being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that victim is minor and the statement of victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) Siwani/- U T