Rajni Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29875 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-511 Year-2020 Thana- BIHPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== RAJNI DEVI W/O SANJAY KUMAR BHAGAT R/O JANKI PRASAD LANE, MUNDICHAK, VILLAGE- SHIVPURI COLONY, SHEETLA STHAN CHOWK, NEAR HEAD STAR SCHOOL, POST- JAGDISHPUR, P.S- ISHAKCHAK, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR, PIN- 812001. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Nitesh Kumar, s/o Upendra Prasad Yadav R/o village- Narayanpur, P.S.- Bhawanipur, Dist-Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sameer Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Lalan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 26-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bihpur P.S. Case No. 511 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B)/506 of the IPC.
3. According to FIR, the informant has a family relationship with the petitioner. The petitioner demanded Rs. 10 lakh for business purposes. Out of the said borrowed amount, though some amount was returned but the remaining amount is yet to be paid. It is further alleged that while the informant demanded the rest balance amount, the petitioner flatly refused to pay.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evasive conduct of the petitioner is apparent, as before the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29875 of 2024(16) dt.26-11-2025 2/2 learned Mediator, she had promised to pay the rest dues money at the mediation centre but thereafter, she did not turn up.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that in spite of promise made by the petitioner to pay the rest amount, he did not adhere to his words.
6. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T