SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3395

PATNA HIGH COURT
PARTHA SARTHY, J
Kaushalya Devi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74405 of 2025 | CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56143 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Satyaveer Jha, Mr. Ashutosh Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam

Bail granted due to insufficient evidence and length of custody under section 97 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Headnote:In this case, applications were preferred under section 97 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 regarding allegations of kidnapping. The petitioners argued that they were falsely implicated and that the informant's son was recovered from another's residence. The Court considered the investigation's material and ordered bail for the petitioners with stipulated conditions. The court noted the petitioner’s custody duration and the submission of the chargesheet. The petitioners are directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 each.

Table of Content
1. bail ordered with specific conditions. (Para 6)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

3 21-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for no.204 of 2025 registered under section 97 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioners is of kidnapping the 5 year old son of the informant who had gone for study to the Anganwari Centre.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. No such occurrence as alleged has taken place. The son of the informant was recovered from the house of one Rupa Devi and the petitioner Kaushalya Devi has been falsely implicated in the case only for the reason that the said Rupa Devi is said to be the sister’s daughter of Kaushalya Devi. The petitioners are in custody since 4.5.2025 and 1.5.2025 respectively and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P.

for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the material that has transpired in course of investigation, the minor son of the informant having been recovered from the house of Rupa Devi, the petitioners being in custody for 8 months since 4.5.2025 and 1.5.2025 respectively and chargesheet having been submitted in the case, the Court directs both the petitioners to be 2025 on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/

(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top