Urmila Devi v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2443 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -26 Year- 2016 Thana -ARWAL District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Urmila Devi, wife of Sri Dukhan Singh, resident of Village- Fakharpur, P.S. & District- Arwal.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Nitish Kumar, son of Binay Singh, resident Behind Purani Registry Office, P.S. & District- Arwal.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Paras Nath, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt Pushpa Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Arwal P.S. Case No. 26 of 2016, registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation of informant, Nitish Kumar, is that Jitendra Singh, son of petitioner, approached to him introducing himself as Branch Manager of L.K.P. Security Limited saying that his company used to invest in Gold, Silver, Copper and Petroleum and in case of depositing Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.10,000/- per month will be return as benefit. Accordingly, he deposited Rs.1,07,000/- on 15.12.2015, Rs.1,45,000/- on 07.01.2016 and
Rs.2,25,000/- on 04.02.2016 in the office of the petitioner. At that time, Jitendra Singh, son of the petitioner, handed over three blank cheques to him saying that in case of not returning his profit, the cheques will be in-cashed. At the same time, several persons also invested the money in the company of Jitendra Singh. The informant and others went to the office of Jitendra Singh but his office was locked and he was traceless. While the informant tried to contract on mobile phone of Jitendra Singh but his mobile phone was found stitched off. Informant also came to know that Urmila Devi (petitioner) has hand in concealing of his son, Jitendra Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would appear from the F.I.R.
that the allegation is against, Jitendra Singh, son of the petitioner and she being the mother of Jitendra Singh has falsely been implicated in this case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner be released on bail, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arwal, in connection with Arwal P.S. Case No.
subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T