Patna High Court
Rima Mukherjee @ Reema MukherjeeversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court denied the petitioner's pre‑arrest bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Rima Mukherjee, was implicated in a fraud involving the alleged forgery of board resolutions and a power of attorney to facilitate the illegal acquisition of land valued at Rs. 100 crore. The prosecution alleges that she presented fabricated documents to the Bhagalpur Registry, enabling co‑accused Raj Kumar Ranjan to register fraudulent deeds. The petitioner contended that she acted under a legitimate board resolution authorizing her to execute the power of attorney and that the documents were not forged, also invoking a prior anticipatory bail order in her favour. The State argued that the board resolutions were declared forged by the company directors and that witnesses denied their authenticity, establishing prima facie participation in offences under sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(3), 61(2) and 111 of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act. After considering the gravity of the alleged offences and the petitioner’s active role, the Court rejected the application for pre‑arrest bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest/anticipatory bail despite allegations of forging board resolutions and a power of attorney.
- Whether the documents presented by the petitioner are genuine or forged for the purpose of committing fraud.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 111, 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(3), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- pre‑arrest bail
- forgery
- power of attorney
- land fraud
- criminal procedure
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64415 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2025 Thana- JOGSAR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Rima Mukherjee @ Reema Mukherjee D/O Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee R/O 1/B
Arrah Footbal Maidan, P.s.- Aribindo, District- Brddhaman, West Bengal-
713212
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Patna
2. Brijendra Kumar Srivastava S/O NA R/O C10, Kalyanpur, West Majar
Road, Ring Road, P.S.- Godamba, Lucknow
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Ankita Kumari , Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam , Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State .
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for
the offence punishable under section 318(4), 61(2), 338, 336(3),
340(2), 351(3) and 111 of BNS.
3 . As per the prosecution case , informant namely ,
Brijendra Kumar srivastava, alleged that he was posted as
Project Land Co-ordinator at Bhagalpur and was given
responsibility by the company for security of land worth Rs. 100
Crore registered in the name of three companies as recorded in
the F.I.R. Further, Raj Kumar Ranjan , a land mafia intended to
grab the land of the company, hence , co-accused Raj Kumar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64415 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
2/4
Ranjan through his associate Rima Mukherjee (petitioner)
presented a fake board resolution and power of attorney issued
from Kolkata for registering deeds at Bhagalpur. Further, an
information was given to Ambuja shelter Private Limited i. e ,.
the company on 21.03.2025 to verify the document by
Bhagalpur Registry on E – mail, in pursuance whereof the
company sent the original document to Bhagalpur Registry on
29.03.2025 , where it transpired that fake documents were
presented.
4. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that no doubt, the petitioner
executed a power of attorney on behalf of the company in
favour of Raj Kumar Ranjan, but the same was based on a
resolution of the Board of the Company which had authorized
the petitioner to execute the said power of attorney. It is further
submitted that power of attorney is not a fake document and the
petitioner accepts that she had executed the said document in
favour of Raj Kumar Ranjan, but the document was executed
only when she was authorized by the company by a board
resolution. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits
that Raj Kumar Ranjan has been granted the privilege of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64415 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
3/4
anticipatory bail by an order dated 16.07.2025 in A.B.P.
No.1384 of 2025 passed by the learned District & Additional
Sessions Judge-16th, Bhagalpur.
5 . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
opposed the bail and submitted that petitioner submitted forged
board resolutions, allegedly authorizing her to execute a power
of attorney in favour of co-accused Raj Kumar Rnajan, dated
27.02.2025 . These documents were later formally denied and
declared forged by the directors of the respective companies
vide letter dated 03.04.2025 . The district Sub-Registrar,
Bhagalpur, had also issued a letter dated 21.03.2025 seeking
clarification regarding the forged resolutions. It is further
submitted that in paragraph 84 of the case diary, one of the
witnesses Nand Lal categorically denied ever signing or sending
such resolution . The alleged forged resolutions, used by the
petitioner to execute power of attorney , are central to the
prosecution case and reflect active and direct participation of the
petitioner in preparation and submission of fabricated
documents, which are the foundation of the alleged fraudulent
transaction . The complicity of the petitioner is further
supported by the detailed correspondence between her and the
Sub- Registrar, the trail of documents and the statements of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64415 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
4/4
witnesses. Prima facie , ingredients of offences under Section
318 ( 4 ), 336 (3) etc of BNS are disclosed against her.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case , nature of accusation and gravity of offence and
petitioner’s active role in the present occurrence , prayer for pre-
arrest bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Koushik/-
U T
Checking your session…