Mamta Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13258 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-316 Year-2020 Thana- CHAPRA TOWN District- Saran ====================================================== MAMTA DEVI Wife of Uma Prasad Resident of Village - North Dahiyawa Tola, P.S.- Chapra Town, District - Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 11-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the learned court below. As per the prosecution case, on the advice of petitioner to get Rs. 500/- per month under Govt. Scheme, the informant open an account in Canara Bank and handed over pass-book and A.T.M. Card to the petitioner but even after expiry of one year, the petitioner did not give any amount to the informant and misused the pass-book and A.T.M. Card of informant as well as other persons also.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no specific overt act levelled against the petitioner. He submits that the informant and petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13258 of 2023(2) dt.11-05-2023 2/2 are next door neighbour and due to some misunderstanding the present case was filed. He further submits petitioner is a house wife having no concern with any Government Scheme as mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submits that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail application and submitted that the allegation levelled as the petitioner is serious in nature. Hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 316/2020. Accordingly, her prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today and seeks regular bail, the learned Court below would pass the order, preferably, on the same day, without being prejudiced by this order considering the fact that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T