Dismissed¶26

Baby Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC30 Aug 2024CR. MISC./51340/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-arrest/anticipatory bail - second application - dismissal for want of change of circumstances - sale deed for Rs.11 lakhs on property already mortgaged with Bank - Sections 406, 420/34 IPC - Kudhni P.S. Case No. 295 of 2022, District Muzaffarpur, Bihar - earlier application rejected 07.07.2023 in Cr.M. 28585/2023 - husband granted pre-arrest bail 27.07.2023 in Cr.M. 35621/2023, parity not granted - liberty to surrender within four weeks and seek regular bail on own merit - Baby Kumari v. The State of Bihar - Patna High Court CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51340 of 2024, decided 30-08-2024.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's second anticipatory bail application cannot be entertained because there is no change of circumstance since the rejection of her earlier application. ¶24

Baby Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's second application for pre-arrest bail in connection with Kudhni P.S. Case No. 295 of 2022 (Sections 406, 420/34 IPC), following rejection of her earlier application on 07.07.2023, should be entertained and granted.

¶14

Court's answer

The petitioner's second anticipatory bail application cannot be entertained because there is no change of circumstance since the rejection of her earlier application.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

It remains an admitted position that the petitioner executed the sale deed after receiving consideration amount in respect of a property which was already mortgaged with the Bank.

¶24

Key takeaways

If the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail in the learned court below within four weeks from the date of this order, her prayer for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 51340 of 2024, oral order dated 30-08-2024: second application of Baby Kumari for pre-arrest bail in Kudhni P.S. Case No. 295 of 2022 (Sections 406, 420/34 IPC) dismissed. Prosecution allegation: petitioner executed a sale deed on consideration of Rs.11 lakhs in respect of property already mortgaged with the Bank. Her earlier pre-arrest bail application had been rejected vide order dated 07.07.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 28585 of 2023; the Court found no change of circumstance and noted it remains admitted that she executed the sale deed after receiving the consideration amount. Although her husband had been granted pre-arrest bail vide order dated 27.07.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35621 of 2023, the petitioner was not extended the same relief. She was permitted to surrender and pray for regular bail in the learned court below within four weeks, such prayer to be considered on its own merit without prejudice from this order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51340 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-295 Year-2022 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Baby Kumari, Wife of Vikash Kumar, Resident of Village- Kudhni, P.S.Kudhni, District- Muzafarapur, Bihar, Pin-844120

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party

¶9

============== Appearance : For the Petitioner	===== :	=================================== Ms. Shilpi Keshri, Advocate Mr. Madhuripu Raj, Advocate
For the State	:	Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
For the Informant ==============	: =====	Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Samrendra Jha, Advocate ===================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 30-08-2024

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶13

counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

¶14

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner to obtain pre-arrest bail in connection with Kudhni P.S. Case No. 295 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. She has got no criminal antecedent.

¶15

3. As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the petitioner is that she executed a sale deed on the consideration amount of Rs.11 lakhs in respect of a property which was already mortgaged with the Bank.

¶16

4. Earlier, the application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.07.2023 passed in

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51340 of 2024(2) dt.30-08-2024 2/3

¶18

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 28585 of 2023 after noticing that it is this petitioner who has executed a sale deed after receiving consideration amount of Rs.11 lakhs in respect of a property which was already mortgaged with the Bank.

¶19

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner has been later on granted privilege of pre-arrest bail by a learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35621 of 2023, therefore, the petitioner be also granted the same relief.

¶20

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant submits that while pleading for pre-arrest bail, the husband of the petitioner has, in fact, passed on the entire responsibility upon the petitioner which would be evident from the submissions made before the learned co-ordinate Bench wherein it is submitted that it was this petitioner who has executed the sale deed.

¶21

7. Learned APP for the State has also opposed this application.

¶22

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and the State as also on perusal of the records, this Court finds that the second anticipatory bail application as framed by the

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51340 of 2024(2) dt.30-08-2024 3/3

¶24

petitioner cannot be entertained. There is no change of circumstance and it remains an admitted position that the petitioner has executed the sale deed after receiving consideration amount in respect of a property which was already mortgaged with the Bank.

¶25

9. If the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail in the learned court below within a period of four weeks from today, her prayer for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

¶26

10. This application is dismissed.

¶27

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶28

lekhi/-

Baby Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Pramila Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Aman Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Abdullah Ansari Vs The State of Bihar through Sri Brajesh Mehrotra (male)

Rajvir Pandit @ Rajveer Pandit @ Rajveer Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Binod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar