Salma @ Slma Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. NK Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ram Parvesh, Adv. Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Adv. Ms. Diksha Kumari, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 03-09-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶13

petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 07 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 127(6), 140(4), 143(e), 145, 64, 61, 352, 351(2) and 3/5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the ITP Act 1956, Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(i)(r)(s)(w)(i), (ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (POA) Act.

¶15

The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 01.02.2025.

¶16

The allegation against the petitioner is to involve in

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26463 of 2025(3) dt.03-09-2025 2/3

¶18

immoral activity and when upon information a raid was conducted in red light area of Khuskibagh Purnea, from where 11 minor victim said to be recovered/rescued.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that implication of petitioner with the present case is merely on the basis of suspicion as petitioner is resident of nearby locality and was completely unaware about the activities, which were running over there. It is submitted by learned counsel that none of the victim made their statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, suggesting any incrimination against petitioner, which may suggest involvement of petitioner with the present crime in question. It is submitted that there is nothing on record or surfaced during the course of investigation, which may suggest that alleged activities are out of atrocities as defined within the meaning of SC/ST Act, 1989. While concluding the argument it is submitted that petitioner is a lady and found involved in one more case, where she is on bail, and moreover, investigation of this case has already completed, and as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶20

Learned Spl.PP appearing on behalf of the State, while opposing the prayer for bail could not dispute aforesaid factual submission.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26463 of 2025(3) dt.03-09-2025 3/3

¶22

In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking note of statement of recovered victim as recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, where prima-facie nothing incriminating appears against petitioner, coupled with the fact as petitioner remains in custody since 01.02.2025, accordingly above named petitioner, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 07 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 06th-cum-Special Judge, (POCSO), Purnea/concerned court, subject to the conditions as mentioned under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S.

¶23

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

¶24

S.Tripathi/-

¶25

U T

Salma @ Slma v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salma @ Slma v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipak Kumar Suretabh @ Deepak Kumar Shuretab Vs The State of Bihar

Ranglal Kumar @ Jhunna Vs The State of Bihar

Sudhar Yadav @ Sughar Yadav @ Sughar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Abdul Salam @ Sonu Vs The State of Bihar

Nazma Khatoon @ Nazma Khattoon Vs The State of Bihar

Muskan Perween @ Muskna Parwin Vs The State of Bihar