Vibha Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40795 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2025 Thana- SHAHPUR PATORI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Vibha Devi W/o Mithilesh Rai @ Mithilesh Ray R/o Village Sahpur Undi, P.S.- Patory, District Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate For the Informant :

Mr. Mahendra Pratap, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending her arrest in connection with Shahpur Patori P.S. Case No. 103 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the B.N.S.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the petitioner has changed his alias (@) name and also the name of his father and has transferred the land of the informant in favour of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a lady and she was having no knowledge regarding the above transfer.

5. The photocopy of the sale deed has been presented

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40795 of 2025(2) dt.25-07-2025 2/2 before the Court. From perusal of the sale deed it goes to show that the sale deed was executed in favour of this petitioner, admittedly the land belongs to the informant and she is the beneficiary. The argument of the learned counsel is that she was not knowing regarding the transaction but it has got no force as the photo of the petitioner is also affixed on the back side of the sale deed and she has signed as well and has put her finger marks.

6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail to the petitioner.

7. Considering above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear case of cheating. I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from the date of this order and the learned trial court is directed to consider the bail on its own merit.

8. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) durgesh/- U T