Gita Devi v. Assistant Director, Director Of Enforcement, Govt. Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16292 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2019 Thana- E.C.I.R (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL) District- Patna ====================================================== Gita Devi Wife of Abhijeet Yadav @ Mahavir Yadav @ Banwari @ Gora Resident of Vill.-Bandhudih, P.O.-Udaigarh, P.S.-Chhattarpur, Distt.-Palamu, State-Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Assistant Director, Director of Enforcement, Govt. of India Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Saxena, Adv.

For the State :

Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, ASG For the ED Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 4 of PML Act.

3. It is alleged that co-accused Abhijeet Yadav is an active member of banned outfit CPI (maoist), a left wing extremist organization against whom there is allegation that as area commander of Madhya zone of Bihar and Jharkhand he has been alleged of threatening of innocent people and forcibly collection of levy from various development works going in Gaya, Aurangabad District of Bihar and Palamu District of Jharkhand. It is further alleged that co-accused Abhijeet Yadav acquired six properties in his name as well as in the name of his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16292 of 2024(6) dt.13-12-2024 2/3 wife Gita Devi (petitioner) through proceeds of crime as well as immovable properties acquired in the name of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that co-accused Abhijeet Yadav acquired six properties in his name and in the name of the petitioner is absolutely wrong as the aforesaid property has itself purchased by the petitioner by selling of agriculture products. He submits that the trial is going on, in which, out of 18 charge-sheet witnesses, 9 have been examined uptil now. He submits that the petitioner is lady and there is no chance to tamper with the prosecution witness. He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application and she is languishing in judicial custody since 06.01.2024.

5. However, learned counsel for the E.D. opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the trial may be concluded within six months.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, her prayer for bail is rejected in connection with Special Trial No. (PMLA) 10 of 2020 arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/04/2019.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16292 of 2024(6) dt.13-12-2024 3/3

7. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within six months.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T