Baby Kumari @ Beby Devi vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Baby Kumari, apprehended her arrest in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that a person named Rahul rented a basement in 2015, with the rent agreement extended in 2018 with Santosh (the petitioner's husband) as a witness. Subsequently, liquor was recovered from the shop, leading to the arrest of Rahul and Santosh, and the sealing of the premises. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner, as Santosh's wife, filed a writ petition (CWJC No.15795/2021) to release the shop by fabricating a rent agreement. The petitioner claimed false implication and no association with the shop, while the complainant pointed to her filing the writ petition as evidence of involvement and noted a GST number in his name for the shop.
Held
The Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the submissions made by the complainant, particularly the fact that the petitioner had filed a writ petition (CWJC No.15795/2021) to secure the release of the shop by allegedly fabricating a rent agreement. The Court found this action inconsistent with the petitioner's claim of having no concern with the shop. Furthermore, the issuance of a process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner was a significant factor in the Court's decision. The Court also took into consideration the complainant's plight of suffering for over four years since the shop was sealed due to liquor recovery and the arrest of the petitioner's husband. The Court was not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail under these circumstances.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of fabricating a rent agreement and filing a writ petition to release a premises from which liquor was recovered and her husband was arrested. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that she was falsely implicated, had no association with the shop, and that her husband, Santosh, was the witness to the rent agreement extension. She argued that her filing of the writ petition was justified as she had taken the premises on rent after 2018. Complainant's arguments: The complainant opposed the anticipatory bail, arguing that the petitioner's filing of the writ petition to release the shop by fabricating a rent agreement was a strong indicator of her involvement. The complainant also highlighted that a process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been issued against the petitioner and pointed to a GST number in his name for the shop, demonstrating his connection to the business run by Rahul and Santosh.
Sections Cited
Section 438, Section 82
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 3 13-08-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State along with learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant.
The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.2537(c)/2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and is a woman and the complainant alleges that Rahul had taken her basement on rent in the year 2015 for running a shop and the rent fixed was Rs.8000/-, further the rent agreement again was extended in the 2/4 year 2018, on which, Santosh was a witness, further the shop was raided and liquor was recovered and Rahul and Santosh were arrested and shop was sealed, it is next alleged that complainant got information that petitioner who is wife of Santosh filed CWJC No.15795/2021 before this Court for releasing the shop by fabricating rent agreement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant. It is also submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the complaint it would manifest that the shop was taken on rent by Rahul and when the agreement was extended in the year 2018, on the said agreement, Santosh was a witness, who is husband of the petitioner. It is thus submitted that petitioner was not associated with the shop in any manner. It is further submitted that even Santosh and Rahul were arrested when the premises was raided.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that no doubt what has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced but then the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the allegation that CWJC No.15795/2021 was filed by her 3/4 before this Court for getting the shop released by fabricating the rent agreement. It is submitted that if petitioner had no concern with the shop in question then where was the occasion for her to move before this court seeking release of the shop. It is next submitted that process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner. It is also submitted that one can well imagine the plight of the complainant, who is suffering for the last more than four years since his shop has been sealed since 2021, in view of the fact that liquor was recovered from the premises and husband of the petitioner was also arrested.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though no document with regard to the premise in dispute has been annexed with the anticipatory bail application but then after 2018, the premise was taken on rent by the petitioner, as such, she had filed the aforesaid writ application, the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is vehemently rebutted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and it is submitted that complainant never gave the shop on rent to the petitioner and if what is being submitted by the petitioner is true, in that it is the news to the complainant and it appears that the petitioner has indulged in some forgery. The learned counsel for the 4/4 complainant next submits that from perusal of Annexure-2, it appears that GST number is in name of the complainant with respect to City Fashion Shop which was being run in the premise, which amply demonstrates the connection of the complainant in the business of Rahul and Santosh.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant and also taking into consideration the fact that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.
amit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.