Patna High Court
Kamini DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Kamini Devi applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR (Case No. 641 of 2024) was lodged against her for alleged forgery and related offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant claimed that a forged sale deed was executed in Kamini's favour to transfer land he had purchased from Bimal Kumar, while Kamini asserted she had a clean record and that any grievance over the deed could be addressed in civil court. The informant’s counsel argued that the deed was part of a conspiracy involving Shila Devi and that the investigation was ongoing. The petitioner’s counsel contended that she was falsely implicated and that anticipatory bail was warranted given her gender and lack of prior offences. After hearing both sides, the bench held that the circumstances did not merit the grant of anticipatory bail and consequently rejected the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under CrPC Section 438 in view of the alleged forgery and related offences.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or abscond if bail is granted.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 34, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- forgery
- land dispute
- IPC sections
- CrPC Section 438
- women
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63297 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-641 Year-2024 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Kamini Devi W/o Kedar Mahaseth @ kedar Nath Mahaseth @ Santosh
Mahaseth R/o Mohalla- Bakarganj, Near Durga Hotel, P.S.- Laheriasarai,
District- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Girish Chandra Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad- A.P.P.
Mr. Ebadur Rahman Shakeb
Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of her
arrest in Laheriasarai P. S. Case No.641 of 2024 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471,
406, 420, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a
woman and the informant alleges that he purchased 01
kattha 15 dhur land from Bimal Kumar on 10.03.2024.
After purchasing the land, the informant applied for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63297 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/4
mutation before the Circle Officer, but Shila Devi objected
the mutation. On enquiry, the informant came to know that
Shila Devi got forged sale deed of the aforesaid purchased
land of the informant executed to Kamini Devi (petitioner),
in the sale deed of Shila Devi, the Jamabandi number of the
land is recorded as 207, which does not pertain the said
land, thus alleges that accused persons committed forgery.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case
by the informant. It is next submitted that in sum and
substance, the allegation against the petitioner that she
executed a sale deed in favour of Shila Devi with respect to
a piece of land which the informant claims to have
purchased from Bimal Kumar. It is submitted that if
informant or Bimal Kumar are aggrieved by the fact that
petitioner executed a sale deed with respect to their land, in
that event, the informant and Bimal Kumar both have
remedy of approaching a Court of competent civil
jurisdiction for getting the sale deed cancelled.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant submits that the case is not as easy as it is being
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63297 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/4
made out. It is further submitted that Shila Devi instituted
SC/ST P. S. Case No. 23 of 2024 dated 12.03.2024 against
Bimal Kumar with an allegation that her husband was
working with Bimal and Bimal had promised to sell the
land to her husband, but Bimal did not sell the land in
favour of her husband. It is submitted that from perusal of
the allegation as alleged in the SC/ST P. S. Case No. 23 of
2024, it would manifest that Shila Devi is the informant
who alleges that her husband was working with Bimal and
Bimal had promised to sell his land to her husband, but
then, the land was not sold, as such, Shila Devi was aware
of the fact that land belongs to Bimal, but still she got a sale
deed executed through Kamini in her favour with respect to
the land of Bimal which the informant had purchased from
him. It is thus submitted that the accused persons in
conspiracy committed the forgery. It is also submitted that
investigation of the case is continuing.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and the
learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63297 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
4/4
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…