Poonam Kumari @ Dr. Poonam Kumari @ Punam Kumari @ Punam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance, Bihar, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3723 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2024 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna ====================================================== Poonam Kumari @ Dr. Poonam Kumari @ Punam Kumari @ Punam Kumar W/O Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Singh @ Vinay Kumar R/O Mohalla - Bhikhanpur, P.S- Ishachak, District - Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance, Bihar, Patna Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the S.V.U :

Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, (Law Officer, S.V.U) For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Special Case No. 17 of 2024 arising out of Special Vigilance Unit P.S Case No. 06 of 2024 from the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, it is alleged that petitioner has demanded bribe of Rs. 10000/- along with one Samsung T.V Set.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that petitioner is an honest and hard working officer. It is also submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3723 of 2025(5) dt.13-05-2025 2/2 15.11.2024 and petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition.

5. However, learned APP for the State oppose the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

6. From perusal of the F.I.R., impugned order and case diary and other materials available on record, it appears that there is direct allegation of bribe against the petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner had demanded bribe of Rs. 10000/- along with one Samsung T.V Set from the informant for sending the M.V.I report and vigilance team on investigation found the allegation against the petitioner is true.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected with liberty that petitioner may renew her prayer for regular bail before the trial Court after completion of one year of custody.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/- U T