Manisha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42468 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-818 Year-2024 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== Manisha Kumari W/O Amit Kumar Tetarway Village- Khawashpur P.S -Aanti District -Gaya P/A- Nandshubh, Apartment, Bisar Talab, ps- Civil Lines, DistGaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Shiv Pujan Kumar Son of Prabhu yadav village- Katari Hill, Ps- Chandauti, Dist- Gaya ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kamal Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP For the informant :

Mr. Abhinav Shandilya, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in Complaint Case No. 818 of 2024 initially registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 384 of the Indian Penal Code but later on, cognizance was taken under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly, the complainant entered into an agreement with the co-accused for executing sale deed and in lieu thereof, an amount of Rs. 71,99,950/- was paid by the complainant and later, the sale deed was not executed. The petitioner is also said

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42468 of 2025(4) dt.10-12-2025 2/3 to have received some money from the complainant through RTGS.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land, in question, was belonging to the petitioner and her husband Amit Kumar Tetarway. As a matter of fact, the brother of Amit Kumar Tetarway started disputing the ownership of the land and that is why, the sale deed could not be executed. Learned Senior counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the admitted amount received by the petitioner from the complainant.

5. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail provisionally for a period of one month on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-IInd Class/concerned court, Gaya in connection with Complaint Case No. 818 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42468 of 2025(4) dt.10-12-2025 3/3

6. It is made clear that at the time of furnishing bail bonds, the petitioner will make payment of the entire admitted amount, received by the petitioner and after payment of the entire admitted amount within the stipulated period, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner will be confirmed by the court below itself.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T