Ramesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90577 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-201 Year-2024 Thana- SONBERSHA RAJ District- Saharsa ====================================================== Ramesh Yadav Son of Gangaram Yadav R/o Village Mehasimar, Ward No. 11, Singiawan, P.S.- Kishanpur, District - Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sonbersa Raj P.S. Case No. 201 of 2024 for the offence under sections 137(2), 96, 143, 98, 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS lodged on 10.11.2024 by the informant, Manjula Devi.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that one Chandni Kumari with a small child came complaining that her house has been washed away in flood and has no shelter as the husband lives outside. In that background, she was allowed to work as maid but on 10.11.2024, she left the place alongwith her minor child. The informant alleged that she always used to talk about the petitioner herein. This led to the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90577 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026 2/2 admittedly, the entire allegation is against the lady Chandni Kumari and only because she used to take the name of the petitioner, he got implicated.

5. Learned APP, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh on the other hand has taken this Court to the learned Sessions Judge order to show that this petitioner is having some rooms where ten to fifteen girls are brought somewhere in the night and then sent in the morning. As such, the missing of the informant's daughter who was taken away by Chandni Kumari, the role of the petitioner cannot be excluded.

6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also taking note of the investigation as recorded in learned Sessions Judge order where allegation against this petitioner is of using rented rooms where girls come and leave in the morning, in that background, it would be appropriate that he seeks bail.

7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T