Dismissed¶21

Rajni Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC26 Nov 2025CR. MISC./29875/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; Patna High Court; Criminal Miscellaneous No.29875 of 2024; Bihpur P.S. Case No. 511 of 2020; District Bhagalpur; IPC Sections 406, 420, 120(B)/506; Rs. 10 lakh loan non-repayment allegation; mediation centre promise not honoured; petitioner Rajni Devi; opposite party/informant Nitesh Kumar; counsel Sameer Kumar and Lalan Kumar; Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey; order dated 26-11-2025.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is rejected: in the court's view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail. ¶21

Rajni Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29875 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-511 Year-2020 Thana- BIHPUR District- Bhagalpur

¶3

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

¶4

RAJNI DEVI W/O SANJAY KUMAR BHAGAT R/O JANKI PRASAD LANE, MUNDICHAK, VILLAGE- SHIVPURI COLONY, SHEETLA STHAN CHOWK, NEAR HEAD STAR SCHOOL, POST- JAGDISHPUR, P.S- ISHAKCHAK, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR, PIN- 812001.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Nitesh Kumar, s/o Upendra Prasad Yadav R/o village- Narayanpur, P.S.Bhawanipur, Dist-Bhagalpur

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sameer Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Lalan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

16 26-11-2025

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bihpur P.S. Case No. 511 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B)/506 of the IPC.

¶16

According to FIR, the informant has a family relationship with the petitioner. The petitioner demanded Rs. 10 lakh for business purposes. Out of the said borrowed amount, though some amount was returned but the remaining amount is yet to be paid. It is further alleged that while the informant demanded the rest balance amount, the petitioner flatly refused to pay.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evasive conduct of the petitioner is apparent, as before the

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29875 of 2024(16) dt.26-11-2025 2/2

¶19

learned Mediator, she had promised to pay the rest dues money at the mediation centre but thereafter, she did not turn up.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that in spite of promise made by the petitioner to pay the rest amount, he did not adhere to his words.

¶21

In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected .

¶22

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶23

Nirmal/- U T

Rajni Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajni Devi 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

Mithilesh Kumar Sah @ Mithlesh Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Sonu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sonu Das Vs The State of Bihar

Niyaz Ahmad Vs The State of Bihar

Shashi Mahton @ Shashi Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Mithun Prasad @ Mithun Chauhan Vs The State of Bihar