Meena Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15525 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2017 Thana- BANKA District- Banka ====================================================== Meena Devi Wife of Sanjulal Hansda Resident of village - Lilavaran, P.S.- Banka, District - Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-03-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Banka P.S. Case No.101 of 2017, F.I.R dated 15.02.2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. According to prosecution case, on a complaint filed by Akhilesh Bharti, Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank, Banka. It is alleged that Yesoda Devi opened a bank account under the Indira Awas Yojana using a Voter ID card as identification and residential proof. Government funds under the scheme were deposited in the account, from which several withdrawals were made between 2014 and 2016. Later, based on a letter from the Block Officer, Banka, it was discovered that the beneficiary was
2/4 fraudulent and the account had been opened using a fake Voter ID card, thereby committing fraud against the bank.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R., has falsely been implicated in the present case due to local politics and the specific allegation is against Yashoda Devi, who has deposited fake voter I.D. to get the benefit under the Indira Awas Yojna. It has next been submitted that the petitioner is not the beneficiary and the other beneficiary Yashoda Devi, had deposited Rs.70,000/- with 12% interest to the Vijaya Bank, which fact is also mentioned in the impugned order dated 10.02.2025. It has further been submitted that the other co-accused person has been granted the privilege of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.14370 of 2025. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent and other co-accused persons are already on bail.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the beneficiary Yashoda Devi, is the master mind of the entire incident having submitted fake voter I.D. to get the
3/4 benefit under the Indira Awas Yojna and the petitioner is in no way connected or involved in the said incident and the petitioner has clean antecedent. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka, in connection with Banka P.S. Case No.101 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
4/4 promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) sharun/- U T