Patna High Court
Rinku KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The bail of the accused is not cancelled as there is no sufficient ground for such cancellation.
Summary
The petitioner, Rinku Kumari, filed a petition seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the accused, Sunil Kumar Thakur, alleging that he had submitted a forged Panchnama dated 28‑08‑2022 and had threatened her and her family. The accused contended that the Panchnama was genuine and that any variation in the petitioner’s name was due to her using both 'Rinku Kumari' and 'Rinku Devi' in different filings, and denied any threats. The High Court examined the record and found no cogent material to support the threat allegation, and noted that the forgery claim was not raised before the Sessions Court where the document was first produced. Since the Panchnama had already been admitted as evidence and the petitioner had not challenged its authenticity earlier, the Court held that the matter should be dealt with by the Sessions Court. Consequently, the Court found no sufficient ground to cancel the bail and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the bail granted to the accused should be cancelled on the ground of alleged forgery and fabrication of the Panchnama dated 28‑08‑2022.
- Whether there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation that the accused threatened the petitioner and her family members.
Subjects
- bail
- forgery
- fabricated document
- threat
- cancellation of bail
- criminal miscellaneous
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78095 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2024 Thana- BIHARIGANJ District- Madhepura
======================================================
Rinku Kumari W/O Bechan Das R/o village - Gopalpur, Ward no.- 5, Chank
faizullah, P.O- Gopalpur, P.S- Udakishunganj, Dsitrict- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunil Kumar Thakur S/O Bhupendra Thakur R/O Vill.- Hathiyondha, Ward
No.- 03, Bihariganj, Dist- Madhepura
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr.Arinjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Manoj Kumar, APP
For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar No.6, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.
2. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner seeking cancellation of bail granted to opposite party
no.2 vide order dated 20.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.21955
of 2025 by this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has sought cancellation of bail on the ground that
the opposite party no.2 filed a forged and fabricated document,
i.e., Panchnama dated 28.08.2022 which has been annnexed as
Annexure-P/2 with Cr. Misc. No.21955 of 2025. However, the
said document was never executed by the petitioner and she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78095 of 2025(5) dt.03-04-2026
2/5
never entered into any compromise. The opposite party no.2
misled this Court on the basis of forged document in order to
procure bail. The learned counsel further submits that opposite
party no.2 made a Panchnama on the basis of forged signature
of the petitioner as the petitioner has filed the present case as
Rinku Kumari and signature on the Panchnama was put as
Rinku Devi. The petitioner completely denies the fact that she
ever executed such document. The learned counsel further
submits that the opposite party no.2 has also given threat to the
family members of the petitioner and has been putting pressure
upon her to compromise the case. On these two grounds, the
petitioner seeks cancellation of bail of the opposite party no.2.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party no.2 vehemently contends that the
opposite party no.2 never threatened the petitioner or her family
members and completely false allegation has been made on this
account. The learned counsel further submits that so far as
allegation of filing a forged and fabricated Panchnama dated
28.08.2022, which has been annnexed as Annexure-P/2 with Cr.
Misc. No.21955 of 2025 is concerned, the same is a genuine
document. The petitioner used to sign her name as Rinku Devi
as well as Rinku Kumari as is apparent from her complaint filed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78095 of 2025(5) dt.03-04-2026
3/5
earlier against one Nawal Kishore Jaiswal vide Complaint Case
No. 168/2022 wherein the petitioner put her signature as Rinku
Devi and also mentioned her name as Rinku Devi. There is no
forgery in the signature of the petitioner. The learned counsel
further submits that if the name of the petitioner is Rinku
Kumari and she has earlier filed complaint case in the name of
Rinku Devi, it is a matter of investigation as to why the present
complaint case which has been converted in the FIR bearing
Bihariganj P.S. Case No. 218/2024 dated 30.06.2024 has been
filed in the name of Rinku Kumari. It rather shows the petitioner
has not even signed the present complaint and the complaint has
been filed at the instance of the some other person and the
petitioner is being used as a tool to harass the opposite party
no.2 who has serious dispute with one Santosh Singh. The
learned counsel further submits that except for these two
grounds, there is no other ground for cancellation of bail.
However, perusal of the order dated 20.08.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No.21955 of 2025 shows this Court after considering all
the facts and circumstances and taking note of doubtful nature
of allegation against the petitioner (opposite party no.2 herein)
and also considering the period of custody of the opposite party
no.2 and his clean antecedent as well as submission of charge
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78095 of 2025(5) dt.03-04-2026
4/5
sheet, granted bail to opposite party no.2 and there is no ground
for cancellation of bail.
5. Perused the record.
6. From perusal of record, I find that the present
petition has been filed by the petitioner with allegation of
opposite party no.2 giving threats to the petitioner and her
family members, which is not supported by any cogent material,
with further allegation of the petitioner about commission of
forgery and fabrication of the Panchnama dated 28.08.2022,
which has been annnexed as Annexure-P/2 with Cr. Misc.
No.21955 of 2025. Except for these two grounds, no other
ground has been laid before this Court for cancellation of bail.
Since the allegation of extending threats by the opposite party
no.2 is not supported by any cogent material, the allegation is
not worth consideration. On the other hand, as the Panchnama
dated 28.08.2022 has already been annexed before the learned
Sessions Court, any claim of it being a forged and fabricated
document by the petitioner should have been raised at the first
instance before the court concerned where the document was
first produced. But the petitioner did not do so. Since the
document has already been produced before the learned
Sessions Court, considering the nature of allegation, liberty is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78095 of 2025(5) dt.03-04-2026
5/5
granted to the petitioner to raise this issue before the learned
Sessions Court where Panchnama dated 28.08.2022 was first
produced and the said court would look into the matter and take
steps to verify the genuineness of said document and signature
of the petitioner.
7. At the same time, finding no ground for
cancellation of bail, the present petition is dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
U T
Checking your session…