SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4711

PATNA HIGH COURT
S. B. Pd. Singh, J
Parmila Devi @ Parmila Singh @ Parmila – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87290 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Rajesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin

The court favored anticipatory bail for the petitioners based on the absence of substantial evidence suggesting flight risk or criminal intent.

Headnote:In the context of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners sought anticipatory bail in relation to Barahiya P.S. Case No. 144 of 2021, for offenses under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34. The court found the allegations involved a conspiracy for wrongful possession of property and determined that granting bail was appropriate. The court framed the pertinent issue of whether the petitioners posed a flight risk or were falsely implicated, leaning towards bail based on the presented clean antecedents and circumstances. The court ruled to enlarge the petitioners on bail under specific conditions.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 24-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Barahiya P.S. Case no. 144 of 2021 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. As per allegation in the FIR, informant is owner of khata No. 717, Kashra No. 520 measuring total area 25 decimal of land. He is having peaceful possession over it for more than

35-40 years. But in order to evict and harass the informant, Basant Kumar by hatching a conspiracy got a Jamabandi revenue receipt in his favour by an illegal manner and filed a Suit No. 15 of 2020. Forged document was prepared by the accused persons with intention to grab the informant’s land, then the present FIR.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case with an ulterior motive and dirty village politics. Petitioner no. 1 is wife of petitioner no. 2. Petitioners have not sold 25 decimal of land to any person then how the informant came in possession over the said land. The land in question is recorded in the name of great grand-father of the petitioner, namely, Manjhi Singh. Moreover, it is purely a civil dispute. Petitioners have got clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of Bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of four weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender in connection with Barahiya P.S. Case no. 144 of 2021, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Lakhisarai subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. Informant will be at liberty to move for cancellation of the said Jamabandi, if it is wrongly standing in the name of the petitioners.

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top