Patna High Court
Binita Kumari @ Vinita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that, given the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the civil character of the property dispute, anticipatory bail could be granted notwithstanding the alleged offences.
Summary
The petitioner, Binita Kumari, sought anticipatory bail after the State alleged she forged documents to acquire a house allotted by the Bihar State Housing Board, invoking Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioner contended that the house was lawfully sold to her in‑laws in 2006, that she has been residing there and paying utilities since 2007, and that the dispute is purely civil with no criminal intent. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the alleged forgery and cheating. The court examined the nature of the accusations, the petitioner’s clean antecedent, and the civil character of the property dispute. Considering these factors, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing that if arrested the petitioner be released on a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case alleging forgery and cheating under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the civil nature of a property dispute negates the applicability of criminal provisions.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- forgery
- property dispute
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- civil vs criminal
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13737 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-571 Year-2024 Thana- RAMPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
Binita Kumari @ Vinita Devi W/o Dilip Kumar @ Surendra Ram Resident of
Mohalla- M.I.G.- 82, Shahid Bhagat Singh Colony, Mustafabad, P.S.-
Rampur, District- Gayajee
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 23-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3),
340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that one house No.
MH-82 was allotted to the mother of informant by Bihar State
Housing Board on making payment of Rs. 1,59,000/-. After the
death of the parents of informant, when informant searched
about the said property, this petitioner contacted him and said
that the said house was sold to this petitioner by his mother.
Informant alleges that this petitioner occupied the house of his
mother by submitting forged documents, with fake signatures of
his mother, in the office of Bihar State Housing Board.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13737 of 2026(2) dt.23-03-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. As a matter
of fact, in the year 2006, mother of the informant sold the said
house to the in-laws of the petitioner on making payment of Rs.
70,000/- and rest loan being due before the informant to the
Housing Board. On 16.02.2006, one agreement in this regard
was made between the mother of informant and mother-in-law
of the petitioner (Annexure-P/2) and pursuant to the said
agreement, this petitioner along with her family are living in the
house in question and paying electricity bill for the same since
June 2007 and as such, no forgery or cheating was done on part
of the petitioner. Moreover, dispute involved in this case is with
regard to sale and purchase of property which is purely of civil
nature. Petitioner is lady and claims clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed
the bail application.
6. Considering backdrop of the case, nature of
accusation and clean antecedent, this anticipatory bail is allowed
and it is ordered that let the above named petitioner in the event
of her arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of
eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13737 of 2026(2) dt.23-03-2026
3/3
amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gayajee in connection with Rampur P. S. Case No. 571 of 2024,
subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…