Patna High Court
Sumitra Devi @ Sumitra KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Sumitra Devi, was implicated in a complaint case alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code for receiving Rs 1,05,500 as part of a Rs 60,00,000 transaction related to a land sale. The petitioner contended that the dispute was purely civil, she had no criminal intent, and she was prepared to return the remaining Rs 5,500 to the complainant. The State and the complainant opposed her request for anticipatory bail. The Court, noting the civil nature of the dispute, the petitioner’s clean antecedents, and her willingness to make restitution, allowed the prayer for anticipatory bail with a bail bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the CrPC and the condition that she pay Rs 5,500 to the complainant. Consequently, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail pending any arrest within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC?
- Whether the allegations constitute a criminal offence or a civil dispute requiring bail considerations
- Applicability of Section 482(2) of the CrPC in granting bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC 406
- IPC 420
- civil dispute
- criminal complaint
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54167 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-454 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Sumitra Devi @ Sumitra Kumari W/o Bavir kumar Resident of village-
Husinabad, P.S.- Aryari, District- Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Susila Devi W/o Jitendra Prasad R/o vill - Bhawalpur, P.S. - Kurtha, Distt.-
Arwal, At present C/o Mr. Badri Naryan Singh, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Mohalla
-Yarpur, Yogitola, Distt.- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Saroj Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP
For the Complainant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 16-01-2026 Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a complaint
case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the complaint case, co-accused Khushbu
Pandey and co-accused Monu Kumar received a sum of Rs.
60,00,000/- from the complainant, as consideration money, for
sale of a piece of land, but they refused to execute the sale-deed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54167 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
2/3
in favour of the complainant and also failed to return the
aforesaid money. It is further alleged that out of aforesaid
amount of Rs. 60,00,000/-, Rs. 1,05,500/- has been paid in the
account of this petitioner.
4. It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and
has committed no offence. From bare perusal of the complaint
petition it is apparent that the dispute arises out of sale and
purchase of land, which is purely civil in nature. Even as per
complaint case, only Rs. 1,05,500/- was transferred in the
account of this petitioner and out of the alleged amount,
petitioner has already transferred Rs. 1,00,000/- in the account
of the complainant, which fact has also been admitted by the
witnesses of the complainant. It is further submitted that
petitioner is ready to return rest of the alleged amount
transferred into her account i.e. Rs. 5,500/- through demand
draft in the name of the complainant. Petitioner is a lady and
claims clean antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 have vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54167 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
3/3
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation, nature of
dispute, clean antecedents of the petitioner and aforesaid
undertaking of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. 1 st Class, Patna City
in connection with Complaint Case No. 454 of 2023, subject to
condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.,
along with the following terms and conditions:
“A. At the time of furnishing bail-bond,
petitioner shall pay Rs. 5,500/- (Rupees five
thousand five hundred) to the complainant
through demand draft.”
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…