Smt. Shila Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30045 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -69 Year- 2016 Thana -UJIYARPUR District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Smt. Shila Devi, Wife of Ramraj Shah, resident of Village- Jattadhi, P.S. Ujjiarpur, District Samastipur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 05-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 16.01.2017 in connection with Ujjiarpur P.S. Case No. 69 of 2016 for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 409, 420, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant Arun Kumar, is that he is the District Coordinator and authorised representative of the State Bank of India and the petitioner was appointed to run the Consumer Service Centre in the said village but she has misappropriated about Rs. 16 lakhs of the consumers of the Bank along with other co-accused.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30045 of 2017 (5) dt.05-09-2017 2/2 petitioner that she is innocent, bears no criminal history and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that none of the witnesses, who were consumers of the Bank, have come up with the complaint, as is evident from the case diary and the State Bank of India has also not investigated the matter as the case diary is silent on that aspect. He submits that the witnesses, who have made such allegations in the case diary, are not bank's consumer and that charge-sheet has already been submitted, hence, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur, in connection with Ujjiarpur P.S. Case No. 69 of 2016, subject to the condition that both the bailors would be close relatives of the petitioner.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) Rajesh/- U T