Geeta Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5518 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-614 Year-2021 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya ====================================================== Geeta Devi W/O Late Ravindra Singh Village- Kathar ward no. 1, P.S.- Sherghati, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Niranjan Kumar S/O Awadhesh Singh Village- Kathar ward no. 1 P.S.- Dobhi, District- Gaya ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Zainul Abedin, App.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 23-07-2025

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Sherghati Police Station Case No. 614 of 2021, disclosing offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 387, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the allegation, petitioner along with other accused persons sold the land belonging to the informant's wife in fraudulent manner to another person in which the petitioner played the main role with the co-accused Vishnu Kumar. The petitioner along with other accused persons armed with weapons, on 11.07.2021, arrived at the land of the informant,

2/4 assaulted him and snatched Rs. 25,000/- from his pocket and threatened to kill the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged and her name has been implicated on the basis of dirty village politics. The petitioner has filed a case against the informant and others vide Sherghati P.S. Case No. 613 of 2021 dated 01.10.2021 for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the I.P.C. and in retaliation, the present FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. The petitioner and informant are cosharers and there is land dispute between them. The co-accused person has been granted anticipatory bail by this court in Cr. Misc. No. 19912 of 2024.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as state and have perused the materials available on record including the impugned order. It appears that the case of the informant is that he purchased four decimals of land of Khata No. 91, Plot No. 597 at village Kathar from Parmeshwar Singh in the name of his wife Lovely Kumari on 29.05.2020. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sherghati, Gaya, have gone through the sale deed and the order of mutation. As per the mutation

3/4 order, the land has been mutated in the name of wife of the informant lovely Kumari on the basis of registered sale deed, Jamabandi was also generated in the name of informant's wife Lovely Kumari. The petitioner filed a mutation appeal bearing Appeal No. 19 of 2021-22 which was dismissed on 27.09.2021 As per agreement regarding the land of the informant, the coaccused Vishnu Kumar received Rs. 15 lakhs from the purchaser Brajesh Kumar on different dates regarding sale of four decimals of land purchased by the informant's wife Lovely Kumari. Two decimals of land was sold on July 2021 and the rest two decimals was sold in July 2022.

6. The petitioner had earlier moved anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge in ABP No. 1093 of 2022 which was rejected by learned A.D.J., 3rd, Gaya, on 08.07.2023. Instead of challenging the order of rejection passed on 08.07.2023 or to surrender before the concerned court, the petitioner again filed an anticipatory bail application before learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sherghati, Gaya, which has been rejected by the impugned order, dated 20.11.2024, arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner along with others sold the land in the name of informant's wife and has played main role in cheating and forgery. The regular bail

4/4 application of co-accused Vishnu Kumar has also been rejected by the learned Court below in B.P. No. SH 16 of 2023 dated 21.01.2023.

7. Considering the aforesaid discussion and the fact that there is specific allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner failed to produce any document to show her prima facie title on the subject land, accordingly, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

8. This application is, accordingly, rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) HarshPandey/- U T