Urmila Anand v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.23285 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -199 Year- 2011 Thana -HATHAURI District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Urmila Anand wife of Sri Ram Rekha Sahni, resident of village- Baluaha, P.S. Hathauri, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Kumari Sujata Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajeev Nayan (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 26-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in jail custody since 13.04.2016 in connection with Hathauri P.S. Case No. 199 of 2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the C.D.P.O., Bochahan on the direction of the District Magistrate and the District Programme Officer lodged the present First Information Report against the petitioner, who was the then Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary for committing certain irregularities by making forgery in the signature in the appointment of Anganwari Sevika.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23285 of 2016 (2) dt.26-05-2016 2/2 It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case due to dirty village politics no sooner she filed nomination for election of Mukhiya in the recent election. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a lady of status having home in village and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or absconding.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the petitioner being the then Mukhiya has been alleged to have committed certain irregularities in appointment of Anganwari Sewika, hence, opposes the prayer for bail.

Be that as it may, since petitioner undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or abscond, let the petitioner named above be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Judge-X-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in connection with Hathauri P.S. Case No. 199 of 2011.

(Nilu Agrawal, J.) Arjun/- U T