Madhuri Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8148 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2024 Thana- PIRI BAZAR District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.
Madhuri Devi W/O Vishwanath Jha R/O Village- Basdeopur, P.S. - Kajra, District- Lakhisarai.
2.
Priyanka Kumari W/O Kanahaiya Jha R/O Village- Basdeopur, P.S. - Kajra, District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Shantanu Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-03-2025 1.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State, Shri. Shantanu Kumar. 2.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420, 120B and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and are women and the informant alleges that Kanahaiya Jha met the informant and her husband and asked them to purchase a piece of land, as detailed in the FIR, for which he has entered into an agreement. It is next alleged that since her husband had retired and had got his retiral dues, hence the informant accepted the offer and the
2/4 price of the land was fixed at 25 lakh and it was also agreed that as to how the amount was to be disbursed, accordingly an amount of Rs. 10 lakh was credited in the account of Madhuri Jha (mother of Kanahaiya Jha) and Rs. 5 lakh in the account of Priyanka Jha (wife of Kanahaiya Jha); apart from the said amount, an amount of Rs. 2 lakh was also credited in the account of deed writer, thereafter the sale deed was executed by one Shrikant Singh, but when the informant sought mutation of the purchased land when an objection was raised by the land owner, thereafter the informant realised that Shrikant Singh was a fictitious person and Kanahaiya Jha has cheated her. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners, being mother and wife of Kanahaiya Jha, came to be implicated. It is next submitted that petitioners were made to understand by Kanahaiya Jha that he is selling a piece of land for which the amount has been credited. It is next submitted that from perusal of allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that an amount of Rs. 10 lakh was credited in the account of Madhuri Jha and Rs. 5 lakh in the account of Priyanka Jha, as such the total amount credited in the account of mother and wife of Kanahaiya Jha is 15 lakh. It is next submitted that the moment petitioners came to know that
3/4 Kanahaiya Jha has duped the informant as such they returned an amount of Rs. 12 lakh in the account of the husband of the informant and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. It is also submitted that the petitioners would return rest of the left over amount, which has been spent, but then they were not knowing that the money credited in their account was on account of cheating committed by Kanahaiya Jha. It is next submitted that Kanahaiya Jha is in custody.
5.
Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Piribazar P.S. Case No. 71 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
7.
It is made clear that informant would be at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of the anticipatory
4/4 bail granted to the petitioners, in the event, if Rs. 12 lakh has not been credited in the account of her husband as pleaded by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. (Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T