Dismissed¶21

Nisha Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC22 Aug 2025CR. MISC./27873/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejection; Nisha Devi v. State of Bihar & Kavita Devi; Patna High Court; Crl. Misc. No.27873 of 2025; decided 22-08-2025; Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.; Raxaul P.S. Case No. 167 of 2024; East Champaran; IPC Ss.366A, 120B, 376DA, 504, 506 r/w 34; POCSO Act Ss.4 & 6; minor victim aged 12; co-accused Sohail Khan, Jitendra, Sheetal Kumari; Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement; active role in calling victim; informant absent despite service; bail prayer stands rejected.

What did the court decide?

In considering the application, the Court took note of the fact that the petitioner played an active role in calling the informant('s minor daughter) from her home. ¶21

Nisha Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27873 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2024 Thana- RAXAUL District- East Champaran

¶3

====================================================== Nisha Devi W/O Indrajit Mahto R/O Triloki Nagar, P.S.- Raxaul, DistrictEast Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

¶4

The State of Bihar.

¶5

Kavita Devi W/O Promod Mahto R/O Trilokinagar, P.S.- Raxaul, DistrictEast Champaran.

¶6

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶7

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Prerna Rishi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Asha Devi, APP ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶9

4 22-08-2025

¶10

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

¶11

The accused/petitioner apprehending her arrest in connection with Raxaul P.S. Case No. 167 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 120B, 376DA, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶12

As per FIR, petitioner alongwith other co-accused called 12 years minor daughter of the informant from her home and, thereafter, hand over to one co-accused Sohail Khan thereafter, she further supplied to another co-accused Jitendra. It was said by victim upon recovery to the informant that she was

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27873 of 2025(4) dt.22-08-2025 2/3

¶14

raped by several accused persons.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the present FIR was lodged with a delay of three days i.e. on 12.05.2024 for the occurrence i.e. 09.05.2024. It is pointed out that aforesaid delay is not appears explained through FIR. It is also submitted by learned counsel that victim left her house on her own due to love affairs which can be gathered from FIR, as the allegation of instigation is not available against petitioner. It is also pointed out that upon recovery nothing incriminating found medically upon victim, which prima facie suggest that rape/penetrative sexual assault was not committed upon her. While concluding argument, it is pointed out that petitioner is a lady of clean antecedent.

¶16

Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that as petitioner alongwith other co-accused, namely, Sheetal Kumari after taking victim in confidence brought her to nearby market from her home and, thereafter she was hand over to the co-accused Sohail Khan, who further supplied her to coaccused Jitendra. It is submitted that the allegation is very specific against this petitioner and this fact also supported by victim while recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

Despite of service, none appeared on behalf of the

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27873 of 2025(4) dt.22-08-2025 3/3

¶19

informant to join present pending proceedings.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

¶21

and by taking note of fact as the petitioner played active role to call informant from her home and her active involvement qua crime in question was also supported by the victim while recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., accordingly prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

¶22

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶23

veena/-

¶24

U T

Nisha Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisha Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Thakur @ Rohit Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Vishal Kumar Chaurasiya @ Vishal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Suchindra Kumar @ Suchindra Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Sonu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Santu Kumar @ Pintu Kumar @ Golu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Istiyak Nadaf @ Md. Isteyak Vs The State of Bihar