Rinku Devi vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4011 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37191 of 2020
   Arising out of PS. Case No.-985 Year-2019 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur
======================================================

Rinku Devi, aged about 34 years, wife of Santosh Singh @ Santosh Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Chaurai, P.O.- Bhelai, P.S.- Udwantnagar, District- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

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

For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State           :       Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3, APP
For the Informant       :       Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 09-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State and

Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Ara Nawada PS Case No. 985 of 2019 dated 20.11.2019, instituted

under Sections 420/467/468/471/34of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that she had

personated Urmila Devi, daughter of Sudarshan Mahto, while

executing a sale deed in favour of co-accused Dayanand Singh.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37191 of 2020 dt.09-08-2021

5. On 09.07.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner had

submitted that he would file an affidavit categorically stating that

she was not the person who had appeared before the authority to

execute the sale deed. The same has not been done. Learned

counsel submitted that despite having been informed, nobody has

turned up to file such affidavit. However, it was submitted that the

husband of the petitioner, a witness of the sale deed and the

identifier, who are co-accused, have been granted anticipatory bail

by the Court.

6. Further, on 09.07.2021, in view of stand taken that the

petitioner was ready and willing to appear before the

Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur who may get an exercise

conducted of comparing/verifying the photograph in the sale deed

in question and give a report as to whether the said photograph is

that of the petitioner or not, such direction was issued. In terms

thereof, a report has been submitted by the Superintendent of

Police, Bhojpur dated 05.08.2021. From the same it transpires that

the petitioner appeared before the Superintendent of Police,

Bhojpur along with her Aadhar and photograph and the

Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur had called the Investigating

Officer of the case who has reported that the petitioner's

photograph on the Aadhar card is the same as that of the person of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37191 of 2020 dt.09-08-2021

the sale deed in question. However, it was stated that expert

opinion would be required.

7. The Court finds substance in the stand of the

Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur that a final opinion can be given

only by the expert. However, for the purposes of forming a

tentative and prima facie opinion for which the said exercise was

undertaken, that too, at the behest of learned counsel for the

petitioner himself, once the photograph produced by her before the

Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur has been found to tally with the

photograph on the sale deed, for the purpose of the present case no

further direction is required by this Court.

8. Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant

submitted that the specific allegation with regard to the petitioner

is that she had appeared before the registering authority and

presented herself as Urmila Devi, daughter of Sudarshan Mahto.

With regard to bail having been granted to the husband of the

petitioner, a witness and the identifier, it was submitted that the

same was in absence of a specific report, as has been made

available in this case by the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur,

with regard to the photograph of the petitioner on her Aadhar and

on sale deed in question being the same, clearly would not entitle

the petitioner to seek parity.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37191 of 2020 dt.09-08-2021

9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

finds substance in the contention of learned APP and learned

counsel for the informant. Once at the behest of petitioner herself,

an exercise for comparing her photograph with that on the sale

deed prima facie appearing to be of the same person and there

being no dispute that she is not the lady described in the sale deed,

the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

10. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

11. Interim protection granted to the petitioner under

order dated 09.07.2021 stands vacated.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Vikash/-

AFR/NAFR U T