Patna High Court
Runita Devi @ Sumanti Devi @ Sunaina DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Runita Devi, wife of Pramod Prasad, was arrested in connection with a land‑acquisition compensation fraud involving victims Kishor Kumar and Sunaina Devi, and charged under IPC sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34. She applied for regular bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that she was implicated only mechanically because her name resembled the victims'. The State argued that the investigation linked her to the misappropriation of funds and that she might abscond if released. The court examined the lack of direct evidence against her but placed weight on the seriousness of the offences and the risk of non‑appearance. Consequently, the court refused the bail application, noting that the petitioner could renew the prayer after charge‑framing. The bail petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the allegations of involvement in land‑acquisition compensation fraud
- Whether the risk of the petitioner absconding justifies denial of bail
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged mechanical implication without substantive evidence warrants bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- land acquisition fraud
- criminal procedure
- high court
- misappropriation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74180 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-435 Year-2023 Thana- CIVIL LINE District- Gaya
======================================================
Runita Devi @ Sumanti Devi @ Sunaina Devi, wife of Sri Pramod Prasad
R/o Village - Pranpur, P.S. Paraiya, Dist. - Gaya Ji.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Aryan Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Fahimuddin
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in Civil Lines P. S.
Case No.435 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 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 in
custody since 22.06.2025. It is next submitted that the
informant alleges that he received a complaint from Kishor
Kumar and Sunaina Devi alleging that their land was
acquired under Amritsar Kolkata Industrial Corridor
Project, hence for seeking compensation, they had given the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74180 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
2/5
requisite documents to Santosh and Pankaj Tirky,
employees of Land Acquisition Office, Dobhi. Further, on
enquiry, it transpired that the amount of compensation has
been credited in a fake account opened in their name in
South Bihar Gramin Bank when they had their account in
Bank of Baroda, as such, the accused persons
misappropriated an amount of Rs.17,20,000/- of Kishor
Kumar and Rs.17,00,000/- of Sunaina Devi.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner next
submits that Pankaj Tirky had approached this Court
seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.74247 of 2025
and the same came to be allowed by an order dated
06.02.2026, on which the learned A.P.P. submits that from
perusal of the order dated 06.02.2026 in Cr. Misc. No.74247
of 2025, it would manifest that the same records that the
S.H.O. and the Investigating Officer were present in the
Court on 16.01.2026 in compliance of the order dated
09.01.2026 in Cr. Misc. No.74247 of 2025 and the S.H.O.
submitted that during the course of investigation, an amount
of Rs.5 Lacs was credited in the account of Pankaj Tirky,
since Pankaj Tirky deposited an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74180 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
3/5
the account of Kishor Kumar and Rs.2,50,000/- in the
account of Sunaina Devi through RTGS, as such, Pankaj
Tirky was granted the privilege of regular bail.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that the name of the
petitioner is Runita Devi and she is wife of Pramod Prasad,
since her name rhymes which Sumanti and Sunaina, as
such, she came to be implicated in the case in a mechanical
manner without there being any evidence on record to
suggest that she was also involved in the occurrence, on
which the learned A.P.P. submits that during the course o f
investigation, it transpired that accounts were opened in
South Bihar Gramin Bank and the amount credited in the
said account of the victims was withdrawn by fake persons
when victim did not have any account in the said bank. It is
next submitted that during the course of investigation, it
also transpired that Sunaina Devi herself had withdrawn the
amount from her account in South Bihar Gramin Bank, but
then, as per FIR, Sunaina Devi was not even aware that an
account in her name was opened in South Bihar Gramin
Bank as she had given the documents relating to Bank of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74180 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
4/5
Baroda where the amount was to be credited, but it appears
that the officials of the land Acquisition Office at Dobhi
connived and opened a forged account in the name of the
victim with South Bihar Gramin Bank and the money was
siphoned off.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since
22.06.2025 and one Lal Vijay Kumar had approached this
Court seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.79458 of
2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated
29.01.2026. It is further submitted that name of Lal Vijay
Kumar transpired during the course of investigation based
on CCTV footage of the bank and allegation against him
was of withdrawing an amount Rs.4 Lacs from the bank in
question, on which the learned A.P.P. submits that the case
of the petitioner is not akin to the case of Lal Vijay Kumar
as the money of the victim has been withdrawn by the
accused persons in connivance and during the course of
investigation also material transpired against the petitioner
connecting her with the offence based on which she was
taken in custody. It is further submitted that if petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74180 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
5/5
released on bail, the petitioner may abscond.
7. Considering the submissions made by the
learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to release the
petitioner on bail.
8. The prayer of the petitioner for bail stands
rejected.
9. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to
renew her prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.