Sobha Kumari @ Sobhi Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14992 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-252 Year-2024 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Sobha Kumari @ Sobhi Kumari W/O Dharmjeet Kumar R/O VillageMakhdumpur, P.S- Hilsa, Dist.- Nalanda, at present resident of MohallaWhite House, Hanuman Nagar, Post- Lohia Nagar, P.S- Patrakar Nagar, Distt.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Asha Pandey D/O Sri Ramnath Pandey R/O Dubey Bhawan, Kalibari Sahmir Takiya, P.O- Chnadchaura, P.S- Civil Line, Distt.- Gaya. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gautam For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramesh Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-04-2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. This application has been filed for the second time for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 252 of 2024 dated 21.04.2024 disclosing offence under section 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the I.P.C. inasmuch as earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this court vide order dt 02.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. 82291/2024.

3. As per the prosecution case on the persuasion of the petitioner who is working in Indian Bank and was known to the informant since 2016, the informant alongwith the petitioner purchased a land bearing khata no. 04, khesra no. 1348, thana no. 60, halka no. 04 situated at Hilsa admeasuring a total area of 04 decimal each by sale deed no. 2466 dt. 03.04.2018 for

2/5 consideration amount of Rs. 14 lakh. The informant kept on asking for the papers from the petitioner but on one pretext or the other she did not produce copy of the sale deed. After some time on a particular day the informant checked her land records online and got to know that the petitioner along with other accused persons has sold her land vide sale deed no. 1386 dated 11.02.2023 to one Rambha Kumari by forging the photograph and other details of the informant. Further the informant obtained certified copy of old and new sale deed from the registry office, Hilsa and came to know that by producing her forge documents and by impersonating some other lady as informant, the petitioner along with other accused persons fraudulently sold her land to the extent of 4 decimals.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation in the first information report is that the petitioner sold the land which was purchased jointly by the petitioner and the informant on 03.04.2018 for a consideration amount of Rs. 14 lakh. He further submits that the husband of the informant namely Basant Dubey entered into an agreement with one Santosh Kumar to sale the same land bearing khata no. 04, khesra no. 1348, area 04 decimal. He further submits that informant and the petitioner jointly sold the land to one Rambha Kumari on 11.02.2023 vide

3/5 sale deed no. 1386 for a consideration amount of 14 lakh. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is now ready and willing to return half of the consideration amount as mentioned in the sale deed dt: 11.02.2023 to the informant without prejudice to her right and contention. The petitioner is posted in Indian Bank, Buddh Marg, Patna as clerk and there is no possibility that the petitioner will abscond or tamper with the evidence.

5. On the last occasion when the matter was taken up submission was made by learned counsel for the informant that land was not sold for the consideration amount of Rs. 14 lakh on 11.02.2023 but that was actually sold for a consideration amount of Rs. 18 lakh. The petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 2 lakh in the bank account of the informant and instruction from the petitioner is that she is ready to pay a sum of Rs. 7 lakh i.e. a total of Rs. 9 lakh to the informant which is half the amount of Rs. 18 lakh. The petitioner is willing to pay balance amount Rs. 7 lakh within one week. Learned counsel next submits that in the aforesaid background the petitioner moved a bail application again before the learned sessions judge which was rejected and thereafter the present application for anticipatory bail has been filed with renewed prayer.

4/5

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner has fraudulently sold the land of the informant which was purchased jointly by the petitioner and the informant by impersonation. The informant is not ready to take Rs. 9 lakh as half of the consideration amount of the land in question from the petitioner and has the apprehension that payment is being made in the account of the informant by the petitioner's husband and she may be implicated in the case lodged by the husband of the petitioner.

7. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is now ready and willing to pay more than the consideration amount of the land mentioned in the sale deed dt: 11.02.2023 i.e. to the tune of Rs. 9 lakh for 04 decimal which the informant is not willing to accept accordingly considering the peculiar facts of the case and the fact that there is no possibility that the petitioner, who is a bank employee, will abscond or tamper with the evidence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

8. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today on

5/5 furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa Nalanda in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 252 of 2024 subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T