Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8832/2026dismissed

Poonam Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-15Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8832 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2025 Thana- MOHAMMADPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Poonam Devi W/O Shiv Shankar Ram @ Shiv Shankar Kumar Ram R/O Village Harijan Toli Ward No 4, P.S.- Mohammadpur, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey For the Bank :

Mr. Vinod Bihari Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Dutt Mishra, Advocate Mr. Amarjeet Choudhary, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the SBI.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 226 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 316(2) and 318(4)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner, along with other accused persons, is said to have withdrawn Rs. 14,79,134/- from the insurance amount of the son of the informant, who died in an accident in Bengaluru, by committing fraud using the informant's UPI and ATM.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. Petitioner is in custody since 24.11.2025.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8832 of 2026(5) dt.15-04-2026 2/2

5. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the SBI have vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The petitioner has been found involved in the crime. She had presented a cheque of 6 Lakh for encashment which was rejected by the Bank; thereafter the petitioner had gone and fought with the bank officials.

7. Considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.

8. It is made clear that any observation made herein is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any manner.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T