Sangeeta Devi @ Sangita v. The Union Of India Through The Central Bureau Of Investigation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 57742 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2013 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna ====================================================== Sangeeta Devi @ Sangita D/o Shri Ram Swarth Singh, R/o Village & P.O.- Nayagao, via- Sheohar, P.S.- Dumari Katsati, District- Sheohar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The Union of India through the Central Bureau of Investigation the Suprintendant of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, Dr. S.K. Singh Path, Bailey Road, Patna-800022.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Miss Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha(SC, CBI) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5.

23-03-2018 Heard Miss Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I.

The sole petitioner, apprehending her arrest in CBI/ACB Case No. RC0232013A003/2013 registered for offence under Sections 120B/420/467/468/477-A/471 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Spl. Case No. 4/2013), has prayed for grant of bail in the event of her arrest or surrender.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as Gramin Das Sevak on the basis of genuine certificate, however; the petitioner, during investigation of the present case, has been made accused, as if, she was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57742 of 2017(5) dt.23-03-2018 2/2 appointed on the strength of fictitious certificate. She further submits that petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, without any cogent evidence, the petitioner has been made accused, whereas, Sri Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned Standing Counsel for C.B.I., on the basis of fact disclosed in the case diary, submits that during investigation, involvement of the petitioner was found true and thereafter, petitioner has also been chargesheeted as accused alongwith others.

Considering the fact that during investigation, accusation against the petitioner has been found true and chargesheet has already been submitted, there is no reason to entertain the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) anay U T