Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8666/2025bail granted

Manju Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2025-03-06Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8666 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2018 Thana- KONCH District- Gaya ====================================================== Manju Devi W/o Shri Dhirendra Narain Singh R/o Village- Kanausi, P.S.- Konch, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-03-2025 Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 79 of 2018, F.I.R. dated 17.03.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner has embezzled the government money to the tune of Rs. 2,53,418/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that as per the allegation in the F.I.R, the petitioner has received advance amount for construction work under head of B.R.G.F. but she has not done the assigned work and Rs. 2,53,418/- is still pending with her. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to deposite the pending amount of Rs. 2,53,418/- (Rs. Two lakhs

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8666 of 2025(2) dt.06-03-2025 2/3 fifty three thousand four hundred and eighteen only) at the time of furnishing bail bond.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has kept the amount in question since 2018 and apart from that her anticipatory bail application has been rejected twice by the Court below.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioner has clean antecedent and she is ready to deposie the aforesaid amount, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gaya in connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 79 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i Petitioner shall furnish a demand draft of Rs. 2,53,418/- (Rs. Two lakhs fifty three thousand four hundred and eighteen only) in favour of the BDO, Guraru Block, Gaya and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8666 of 2025(2) dt.06-03-2025 3/3 the same shall be deposited at the time of furnishing bail bond and the learned Court is directed to hand over the said demand draft to the BDO, Guraru Block, Gaya.

ii. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. iii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iv. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T