Arpana Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32097 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2023 Thana- MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE District- Gaya ====================================================== Arpana Kumari WIFE OF Durgesh Kumar D/O RAJENDRA SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- B.T. Bigha P.O.- B.T. Bigha, P.S.- Sherghati, DIST- GAYA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP For the Informant :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 12-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Magadh Medical P.S. Case No.189 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 406, 420, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.

Allegedly the petitioner and her husband are said to have committed forgery of Rs.8,64,000/- from the informant on the pretext of selling their house to the informant. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. She has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. It is submitted that the petitioner wanted to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32097 of 2024(4) dt.12-07-2024 2/2 grab the property on half consideration amount and this case has been lodged to put pressure upon the petitioner to register the sale deed in favour of the informant. It is a civil nature of case. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 12.11.2023.

5.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of bail on her behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

However, petitioner is at liberty to renew her prayer for bail after framing of charge.

8.

With the aforesaid liberty, the present bail application is dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T