Mala Devi Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22955 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-736 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Shambhu Singh, S/O Lt Ramshray Singh Resident Of Vill.- Laukariya, P.sHarsidhi, Dist- East Champaran

¶5

Satendra Singh @ Ladu Singh, Son of Shambhu Singh Resident Of Vill.Laukariya, P.s- Harsidhi, Dist- East Champaran

¶6

Kunal Kumar, Son of Akhilesh Singh Resident Of Vill.- Laukariya, P.sHarsidhi, Dist- East Champaran

¶7

Sunila Devi, Wife of Ranjit Singh Resident Of Vill.- Laukariya, P.sHarsidhi, Dist- East Champaran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶12

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

¶13

with

¶14

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23113 of 2026

¶15

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-736 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran

¶16

====================================================== Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Singh, S/O Narad Singh Resident of Village - Laukariya, P.S- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶21

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

¶22

with

¶23

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23409 of 2026

¶24

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-736 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran

¶25

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

¶26

Mala Devi, W/o Sanjay Rai Resident of Village- Sher (Shiriya), PSSidhwaliya, District- East Champaran

¶27

Madhu Devi, W/o Chandra Prakash Shahi R/o vill - Shouhari, P.S.- Dhamo Bazar, Dist.- Siwan

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

¶32

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22955 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026 2/8

¶33

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22955 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar, Advocate Ms. Shruti Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23113 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23409 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶34

4 01-07-2026

¶35

Since all these anticipatory bail applications arise from the same P.S., hence, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶36

Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned A.P.P.s for the State.

¶37

The petitioners, namely, Shambhu Singh, Satendra Singh @ Ladu Singh, Kunal Kumar and Sunila Devi in Cr. Misc. No.22955 of 2026; Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Singh in Cr. Misc. No.23113 of 2026 and Mala Devi and Madhu Devi in Cr. Misc. No.23409 of 2026 apprehend their arrest in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No.736 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶38

As per the prosecution case, the informant gave a written report stating that he had purchased certain land on 08.11.2021 from Akhilesh Singh and thereafter, he was in

¶39

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22955 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026 3/8

¶40

peaceful possession of the same. It is alleged that when the informant had gone to plough the said land, the named accused persons, including the petitioners, came there and asked him to stop the work, and they also demanded Rs.2,00,000/- as extortion. When the informant denied giving the extortion amount, they started assaulting him and even snatched away his gold chain. It is further alleged that on 17.10.2025, the named accused persons, including the petitioners, under a conspiracy, by preparing fake documents, got a sale deed registered through Mala Devi (petitioner) in which the petitioners Sunila Devi, Shambhu Singh, and Madhu Devi were made identifiers.

¶41

It is alleged by the informant that accused Kunal Kumar and Abhishek Kumar, both sons of Akhilesh Singh, in conspiracy, had got the land registered through the sister of Akhilesh Singh, i.e., Mala Devi, in the name of others. It has lastly been alleged that all the accused persons, with an intention to cheat, had got the said sale deed executed despite knowing the fact that the land had already been sold by Akhilesh Singh to the informant in the year 2021.

¶42

Learned counsels appearing on behalf of all the petitioners, as stated hereinabove, submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false and concocted, as Mala Devi

¶43

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22955 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026 4/8

¶44

and Madhu Devi (petitioners), had executed the sale deed, being one of the co-sharers of the property and in fact, Mala Devi was aggrieved by the fact that Akhilesh Singh had wrongly executed the sale deed in the year 2021 in favour of the informant. The learned counsels have further pointed out that Mala Devi and her sister, Madhu Devi, realizing the fact that the sale deed executed by their brother, Akhilesh Singh, was void, filed a Title Suit No. 179 of 2025 before the Court of Sub-Judge, Areraj, East Champaran, wherein the present informant as well as their brother, Akhilesh Singh, are party defendants and the relief sought therein is with respect to cancellation of the sale deed dated 08.11.2021 executed by Akhilesh Singh in favour of the informant, Virendra Kumar.

¶45

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Shambhu Singh, Satendra Singh, Kunal Kumar, and Sunila Devi, submitted that Shambhu Singh stood as a witness to the said sale deed, while the allegations against Satendra Singh and Kunal Kumar are that they had demanded rangdari and were instrumental in getting the sale deed executed. The fourth petitioner, namely, Sunila Devi, was a purchaser, and therefore, they cannot be saddled with the liability of cheating, as they had not received any consideration amount for the said

¶46

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22955 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026 5/8

¶47

sale deed.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Singh, however, submits that the only allegation against this petitioner is that he had abused the informant and demanded extortion money, however, he is in no way connected with the execution of the sale deed and neither stood as a witness or identifier nor had received any consideration amount.

¶49

It has thus been submitted by the learned counsels that it is not a case where the sale deed executed by the sisters of Akhilesh Singh can be said to be forged in any manner, as it was validly executed in the Registrar's Office. Since there is a dispute with regard to the share in the property, a title suit is already pending, the present criminal case has been lodged only to coerce the petitioners into a compromise.

¶50

The learned counsels for the petitioners submits that the petitioners Madhu Devi and Mala Devi have clean antecedents, while petitioner Shambhu Singh has three criminal antecedents, petitioner Satendra Singh has two criminal antecedents, petitioner Kunal Kumar has one criminal antecedent and petitioner Sunila Devi has one criminal antecedent. It has further been submitted that petitioner Pankaj

¶51

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22955 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026 6/8

¶52

Kumar has six criminal antecedents against his name.

¶53

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and the learned APP for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submit that the petitioners connived in getting the sale deed executed, knowing very well that the land in question was sold by Akhilesh Singh to the informant in the year 2021. It has further been submitted that the said sale deed is false and fabricated, as Mala Devi and her sister had no right, title, or interest over the land in question, and, therefore, the sale deed cannot be said to have been validly executed. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that proclamation orders have been issued in the present case and therefore, the present application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

¶54

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that, rightly or wrongly, the sale deed has been executed by the sisters of Akhilesh Singh, claiming their right, title and interest over the land in question and the same was duly registered before the office of the Registrar and a title suit for cancellation of the earlier sale deed executed by the vendor of the informant is already pending. In view of such fact, let the

¶55

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22955 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026 7/8

¶56

petitioners, namely, Shambhu Singh, Satendra Singh @ Ladu Singh, Kunal Kumar and Sunila Devi in Cr. Misc. No.22955 of 2026; Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Singh in Cr. Misc. No.23113 of 2026 and Mala Devi and Madhu Devi in Cr. Misc. No.23409 of 2026 be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No.736 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to the following conditions:-

¶57

(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be their close relative.

¶58

(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.

¶59

(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.

¶60

(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of their bail bond.

¶61

(v) The learned Court below shall verify the

¶62

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22955 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026 8/8

¶63

criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶64