Manju Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8246 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2023 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Manju Devi wife of Manoj Thakur @ Thakur Manoj Kumar VillageVishunpura, P.S. Mahua, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Sudha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kr. No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 09-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kr. No. 1, learned APP for the State.

2.

Petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No.06 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 420, 409/34 of IPC.

3.

As per prosecution case, under the scheme of Mukhyamantri Pay Jal Nischay Yojna, an amount of Rs. 14,75,200/- was sent but neither the work has completed according to estimates nor remaining amount was returned to WIMC's account.

4.

Vide order dated 20.02.2024, petitioner was released on provisional bail only for three months. On the consequent dates i.e on 24.06.2024, 19.08.2024, 09.09.2024, 30.09.2024 and 20.11.2024, this court has not extended the provisional bail of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8246 of 2024(8) dt.09-12-2024 2/2 the petitioner and petitioner till now, has not surrendered before the court below.

5.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. She has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. She is neither Junior Engineer (Technical Assistant) nor she submitted measurement book. It is further submitted that the petitioner has completed the work and deposited the rest amount in the concerned department. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

6.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. 7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that petitioner has only granted three months provisional bail, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on her behalf is hereby rejected.

8.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) priyanka/- U T