Kewal Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53298 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-458 Year-2023 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

Kewal Devi wife of Late Bhupendra Prasad Singh Village- Bargaon PsKusheshwar Asthan Dist- Darbhanga 2.

Mala Devi wife of Ganesh Singh Village- Belsandi Dih Ps- Bibhutipur DistSamastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sunda Devi wife of Radheshyam Singh Village- Badgav Ps- Kusheshwar Sthan Dist- Darbhanga ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghwendra Pratap Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-10-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, Mr. Yogesh Kumar.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 458 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that Dharamveer along with B.K. Singh and Ganesh Singh had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 49074 of 2024, but the same was rejected by an order dated 11.09.2024. It is also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53298 of 2024(3) dt.03-10-2024 2/2 submitted that the case was considered in detail on merits. It is further submitted that the thrust of the allegation is against petitioner no. 1 in the FIR that she sold the entire land in favour of petitioner no. 2 who is her daughter-in-law by forging the signature of informant and Banarasi Devi. It is next submitted that the case of Dharamveer and others were on a better footing than that of the present petitioners, as such, petitioners does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and taking into consideration the order dated 11.09.2024 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 49074 of 2024, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T