Tara Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 29 July, 2025

Patna High Court – Orders

Tara Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 29 July, 2025

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26018 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-345 Year-2024 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East
                                                       Champaran
                 ======================================================
           1.     Tara Devi Wife of Chanu Sahani Resident of village- sohel Chhapra, Ps-
                  Turkauliya, Dist- East Champaran
           2.    Chanu Sahani son of Jagan Sahani Resident of village- sohel Chhapra, Ps-
                 Turkauliya, Dist- East Champaran

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Manju Devi Wife of Jaylal Sah village- Kolhuarwa near Ramna Pul, Ps-
                 Motihari town, Dist- East Champaran

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   29-07-2025

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Town

P.S. Case No. 345 of 2024 instituted for the offences under

Sections 363, 366A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on,

Section 376D of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act was

added.

3. Prosecution story, in short, is that the accused

Nausad Alam enticed away the informant’s minor daughter with

wrongful intent, and in such occurrence, she was later taken
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26018 of 2025(4) dt.29-07-2025
2/4

away by other accused persons on a tempo. Since then, victim

has been missing.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case.

Learned counsel further submitted that there is a delay of three

days in lodging the FIR without any plausible explanation,

which in itself, raises doubt over the prosecution story.

Petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. The name of the

petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of statement of the

victim recorded before the police. Learned counsel further

submitted that victim, in her statement recorded under Section

164 Cr.P.C., has not whispered anything against petitioner no. 1

and so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, the victim has only

stated that he tried to commit wrong with her. Learned counsel

further submitted that there is contradiction in the statements of

the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. It

has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners

are in custody since 05.11.2024 and have no criminal

antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed

the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. Learned APP

further submitted that police, after investigation, submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26018 of 2025(4) dt.29-07-2025
3/4

charge-sheet under Sections 342, 363, 370, 372, 373 of the IPC,

Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3/4/5 of the Immoral

Traffic (Prevention) Act against petitioner no. 1, namely, Tara

Devi and under Sections 376, 511 of the IPC and Section 4 of

the POCSO Act against petitioner no.2, namely, Chanu Sahani.

Learned counsel further submitted that victim in her statements

recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. has made

direct and serious allegations against the petitioner no. 1 that she

forcibly entered her into flesh trade and against petitioner no. 2

that he tried to establish physical relationship with her and

therefore, the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

of the case and the statements of the victim recorded under

Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. and also taking note of the

fact that, police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under

Sections 342, 363, 370, 372, 373 of the IPC, Section 8 of the

POCSO Act and Sections 3/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic

(Prevention) Act against petitioner no. 1, namely, Tara Devi, this

Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner no. 1, namely,

Tara Devi.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the

petitioner no. 1, namely, Tara Devi is rejected.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26018 of 2025(4) dt.29-07-2025
4/4

8. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, there is no

material of committing rape upon the victim as also considering

the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court is

inclined to grant bail to the petitioner no. 2, namely, Chanu

Sahani.

9. Let the petitioner no. 2, namely, Chanu Sahani be

released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten

thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with

Town P.S. Case No. 345 of 2024.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-

U      T