Patna High Court
Sakila DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court rejected anticipatory bail for petitioners 2, 3 and 5, but allowed it for petitioners 1, 4 and 6, subject to bail‑bond conditions.
Summary
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case (PS 170 of 2024) alleging offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from a disputed sale deed of family land. The prosecution alleged that Yogendra Rai (petitioner 5) forged a sale deed to transfer the land to his sons Amitabh Bachchan and Amresh Kumar, thereby depriving the informant’s father of his share. The petitioners contended that the land had been lawfully allotted to Yogendra Rai in a family partition and that the sale was a legitimate transfer among co‑sharers. The court examined the rival submissions and, on a prima‑facie basis, held that the deed appeared to be a sham intended to cheat the informant. Consequently, anticipatory bail was denied to petitioners 2, 3 and 5, while it was granted to petitioners 1, 4 and 6 (the women) subject to bail‑bond conditions. The court directed the denied petitioners to surrender within two weeks and seek regular bail, and it clarified that its observations are limited to the present application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in view of the alleged forgery of a sale deed.
- Whether the sale deed executed by Yogendra Rai is a genuine transfer of co‑sharers’ share or a sham intended to deprive the informant of his right.
- Whether gender considerations justify differential bail relief for the female petitioners.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 3(5), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- forgery
- sale deed
- joint family property
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- gender and bail
- section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29835 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2024 Thana- PHENHARA District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Sakila Devi W/o Deep Lal Sahani Resident of Village - Mankerwa, P.s. -
Phenhara, District - East Champaran
2. Amitabh Bachan S/o Yogendra Rai Resident of Village - Mankerwa, P.s. -
Phenhara, District - East Champaran
3. Amresh Kumar S/o Yogendra Rai Resident of Village - Mankerwa, P.s. -
Phenhara, District - East Champaran
4. Ranjeeta Devi W/o Radhey Sahani Resident of Village - Mankerwa, P.s. -
Phenhara, District - East Champaran
5. Yogendra Rai S/o Late Banti Rai Resident of Village - Mankerwa, P.s. -
Phenhara, District - East Champaran
6. Mintu Devi W/o Rajesh Mahto Resident of Village - Mankerwa, P.s. -
Phenhara, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunil Kumar S/o- Late Surdev Prasad Yadav Resident of village Mankarwa
PS- Phenhara Dist- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Adarsh Ranjan
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Meena Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 19-02-2026 Seen the office notes.
2. The service of notice by ordinary process is treated
as valid.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned counsel for the State.
4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with
Phenhara P.S. Case No. 170 of 2024 registered for offences
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29835 of 2025(6) dt.19-02-2026
2/4
under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
5. According to the prosecution case, the father of the
informant, Suryadev Prasad Yadav, was working at Tata Steel
Company and had purchased land through a registered sale deed
on 14-02-1984. The informant peacefully took possession of the
land. After the death of the father of the informant, accused
Yogendra Rai, with an intention to seize the land, deceived the
informant and fraudulently sold it to his sons, Amitabh
Bachchan and Amresh Kumar, along with co-accused Mintu
Devi, Sakila Devi, and Ranjeeta Devi, through a registered sale
deed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. He
further submits that, after a partition in the family, the land was
allotted to petitioner no. 5, Yogendra Rai, who transferred his
share of the land to his sons. Both parties are co-sharers.
Petitioner no. 5 is the seller of the land, while the remaining
petitioners are the purchasers.
7. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail and has submitted that there was no occasion
for the petitioner no. 5, Yogendra Rai to transfer the land by way
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29835 of 2025(6) dt.19-02-2026
3/4
of registered deed to his children as if the land had fallen in his
share, his children would have been the co-sharers of that land.
8. I have considered the rival submissions of the
parties. Prima-facie, I am of the view that the petitioner no. 5,
Yogendra Rai had executed a sham and forged sale deed to
deprive the informant of his share in the joint family property.
9. In these circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory
bail of the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 5 is rejected.
10. Accordingly, this application filed on behalf of
petitioner nos. 2, 3, and 5 is dismissed.
11. The petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 5 are directed to
surrender in the court below within a period of two weeks from
today and seek regular bail, failing which the Superintendent of
Police, East Champaran, Motihari will take all steps for the
arrest of the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 5.
12. As far as the petitioner nos. 1, 4 and 6 are
concerned, considering the fact that they are women, their
prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
13. Consequently, let the petitioner nos. 1, 4 and 6,
above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within
four weeks from today in the Court below, be released on bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29835 of 2025(6) dt.19-02-2026
4/4
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran,
Motihari/concerned court below in connection with Phenhara
P.S. Case No. 170 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
14. Accordingly, this application is partly allowed.
15. It is, however, clarified that the observations made
herein are limited to the adjudication of the present application
and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 5
at any subsequent stage of the proceedings.
16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari through
FAX for its compliance forthwith.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…