Rakhi Gupta @ Kumari Rakhee Gupta v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22109 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1147 Year-2024 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== Rakhi Gupta @ Kumari Rakhee Gupta W/O Dr. Rajesh Kumar Ranjan @ Rajesh Kumar Ranjan Resident of Village- Dazy Homeo Hall, D.B. Road, Ward No.- 10, P.S.- Saharsa Sadar, Dist.- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Satyam Anand For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 1147 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 351(2), 351(3), 338, 336(3), 340(2) amd 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant has alleged that on 05.09.2024, accused persons namely Kundan Kumar Singh @ Sipu Singh, Sudhir Singh, and Saurabh Mishra came to the residence of the informant and criminally intimidated him. They threatened that the informant must transfer his land to them, failing which they would forcibly get the land sold to someone else. Thereafter, on 19.09.2024, the
2/4 informant came to know that a portion of his land measuring 1 kattha 12 dhur had been fraudulently registered to a person without his knowledge or consent. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that the said illegal registry was executed by Suryamohan Jha in favour of Rakhi Gupta (petitioner). Shockingly, the informant's name, Chandraprakash Lal Das, was falsely shown as a witness in the said registry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is quite innocent and had not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. rather she has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegations made in the F.I.R. is totally false, fabricated, concocted and having no essence of truth. Petitioner is the bona fide purchaser of the land in question and had paid due consideration amount for its purchase and only after that a valid sale deed i.e. Sale Deed No. 16667 dated 19.09.2024 was executed in her favour. Learned counsel further submits that from perusal of F.I.R., it is evident that no any specific allegation of forgery or criminal intimidation has been levelled against the petitioner. All the allegations made in the F.I.R. against this petitioner appears to be general and omnibus in nature. Had the petitioner been aware of any such dispute, she would never enter into such kind of transaction. A statement has
3/4 been made in para 3 of the bail application that petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail.
6. It is submitted that a xerox copy of the aforesaid registered sale deed has been annexed with the bail application as Annexure-2. A perusal of the same reveals that the sale deed has been executed by Asha Jha in favour of Rakhi Gupta, wherein one Rakesh Mohan has been shown as the identifier of the executant. Further, the name and purported signature of Chandraprakash Lal Das (informant) have been reflected as a witness to the said document.
7. However, the informant has categorically denied having either participated in the execution of the said sale deed or having affixed his signature therein, and has specifically alleged his signature on the sale deed as forged.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the said identifier, namely Rakesh Mohan, has not been arraigned as an accused in the present case despite the fact that he was the person who identified the vendor at the time of execution of the sale deed. It is further submitted that, even if the property transaction is assumed to be disputed, the petitioner has no concern with the alleged forged signature of the
4/4 informant, and no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in relation to the said act of forgery.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
10. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 1147 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., as also with the condition that one of the bailors should be close relative of the petitioner. (S. B. Pd. Singh, J) Ankit Kumar/- U T