Mandavi Devi @ Mandvi Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45917 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2025 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Mandavi Devi @ Mandvi Devi W/O Krishna Murari @ Krishana Murari Sinha R/O Village- Chowar, P.S- Tankuppa, Distt.- Gaya. 2.

Krishna Murari @ Krishana Murari Sinha S/O Late Bachu Sinha R/O Village- Chowar, P.S- Tankuppa, Distt.- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Pankaj Kumar S/O Arvind Pandey R/O Village- Koshila, P.S- Magadh Vishwavidhalaya, Distt.- Gaya.

3.

Vijay Kumar Pandey S/O Rajendra Pandey R/O Village- Koshila, P.SMagadh Vishwavidhalaya, Distt.- Gaya. 4.

Rangnath Sharma S/O Lakshaman Sharma R/O Village- New Godam Jhilganj, P.S- Kotwali, Distt.- Gaya.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Subodh Kumar Barnwal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Bodhgaya P.S. Case no. 12 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Sections 316 (2), 318 (4) of BSS.

3. The case of the prosecution is that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the informant for the transfer of land. It is further alleged that Rs. 7,00,000/-,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45917 of 2025(2) dt.04-08-2025 2/3 5,00,000/ and 2,00,000/- was given as advance. It is further alleged that the petitioners have neither executed the sale deed in favour of the informant nor have returned the cash.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in connection with the present case. It is further submitted that there has been a compromise between the parties before the police which is filed in the trial Court. At the foot of the compromise petition, there is an endorsement made by Pankaj Kumar that he has received the amount from the petitioner and her husband. It is further submitted that though there was an agreement but due to some dispute sale deed could not be executed whereas the advance has been returned. Admittedly, there was an agreement between the parties and it goes to show that initially the intention of the petitioner was not male fide. It is out an out a case of civil nature.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposed the prayer of bail of the petitioner.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45917 of 2025(2) dt.04-08-2025 3/3 period of four weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender in connection with Bodhgaya P.S. Case no. 12 of 2025, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/ Section 482 (2) of the BNSS. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Jagdish/- U