Pramila Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87933 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-449 Year-2025 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.
Pramila Devi W/o Nirsu Ray @ Surendra Ray R/o Vill- Harpur Tand, P.S.- Mahua, Distt- Vaishali 2.
Gorakh Ray @ Mukesh Ray @ Mukesh Kumar S/o Nina Ray R/o VillRasulpur, Mubarak, P.S.- Mahua, Distt- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Rinki Devi W/o Raju Ray R/o Vill- Rasulpur, Mubarak, P.O.- Manworha, P.S.- Mahua, Distt- Vaishali ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are person with clean antecedent and petitioner no.1 is a woman and the informant alleges that on 31.03.2025 at 01:00 p.m., the accused persons including the petitioners came on a car and Rajnish Kumar forcefully made her minor daughter
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87933 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026 2/3 sit in the car with the help of Mohan Rai, next alleges that accused may sale her daughter for immoral purpose.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner no.1 is mother of Rajnish Kumar and petitioner no.2 is uncle (Mausa) of Rajnish Kumar and they came to be implicated only with a view to coerce Rajnish Kumar into submission. It is also submitted that Rajnish Kumar and the victim were in love and they eloped and the victim had come back and her statement was recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. wherein she has not supported the case of the prosecution and has disclosed her age as 19 years though the court has assessed her age to be 16 years. It is also submitted that victim presently is staying at remand home as she has refused to go to her parents' home.
It is further submitted that whether victim is a minor or a major, that is an issue of investigation but then the manner in which the entire family members have been implicated is a matter of concern. It is next submitted that no mother would assist her son in kidnapping a victim for the purposes of marriage but then police in mechanical manner investigates.
5. The learned APP for the State and the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87933 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026 3/3 counsel appearing on behalf of the informant oppose the anticipatory bail application but then are not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that victim has not supported the case of the prosecution.
6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners, let petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender with a period of six weeks from today, be released on 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 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Vaishali, Hajipur in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No.449 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sanjay/- U T