Dismissed¶23

Rajani Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC25 Jul 2025CR. APP (SJ)/714/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; criminal appeal dismissed (Patna High Court, 25-07-2025, Prabhat Kumar Singh, J). Allegations of fraudulent execution of sale deeds of land allotted to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe members under the Bandobasti Scheme using forged and fabricated documents; offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 447, 120B IPC and Section 3(2)(va)(g) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; PS Case No. 138 of 2022, Amarpur, Banka; informant absent despite valid service of notice; appellant Rajani Devi; State represented by Spl.P.P.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the specific and direct nature of the accusation, the appellant's prayer for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected and the appeal was dismissed. ¶22

Rajani Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.714 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2022 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka

¶3

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

¶4

Rajani Devi WIFE OF PINTU DAS Resident of village- Sikandarpur Harijan Tola, PS -Mojahidpur, Dist -Bhagalpur

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Vibhakar Kumar , Advocate For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.PP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

10 25-07-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

¶13

Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the informant.

¶14

This appeal has been filed for setting aside order dated 30.09.2023 passed in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 447 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant has been rejected.

¶15

As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this appellant, along with other co-accused persons named in the

¶16

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.714 of 2024(10) dt.25-07-2025 2/3

¶17

F.I.R., is land broker and sells the lands lawfully allotted to members of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes by the State Government through Bandobasti Scheme. It is further alleged that this appellant, through fraudulent misrepresentation, executed the sale deed of such land by using forged and fabricated documents to other accused persons.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that appellant is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. It is not the case of the prosecution that this appellant abused informant and others by caste name and as such, no case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellant. Appellant claims clean antecedents.

¶19

On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed this appeal and submitted that appellant is named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that he, along with other co-accused persons, fraudulently usurped the land allotted to members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and executed sale deed of such land on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.

¶20