Lal Muni Devi v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21367 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -55 Year- 2015 Thana -SASARAM NAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ===================================================== = Lal Muni Devi Wife of Binod Kumar Resident of Mohalla - Sonar Toli (Sasaram), P.S. - Sasaram Town, P.O. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Shambhu Lal Mahto Son of Late Vishwanath Mahto Resident of Mohalla - Civil Line Near Saint Paul School, Sasaram, P.S. - Sasaram Town, District - Rohtas.

.... .... Opposite Parties.

===================================================== = Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat (A.P.P.) ===================================================== = CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case instituted under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story, in short, is that according to F.I.R. the informant Shambhu Lal Mahto had filed a complaint petition before the C.J.M., Rohtas, stating therein that there was an agreement for purchasing of land between the parties for Rs. 15,00,000/- and after executing an Ekrarnam Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid to the accused persons but the stipulated period was elapsed and the accused had not registered that land in favour of the complainant and when he demanded the money back, they had not done so, and grabbed the aforesaid amount.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21367 of 2015 (2) dt.09-07-2015 whatever the transaction that had taken place was with husband of the petitioner and petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case only to put pressure upon her husband. It has further submitted that no wrongful gain has been made on the part of the petitioner. No fraud has been committed on the part of the petitioner. It has further submitted that the husband of the petitioner is in jail and the petitioner is a lady. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances for the specific allegation is against the husband of the petitioner, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender in the Court below within a period four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 55 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Sections 438 (2) of the Cr. P.C. (Sudhir Singh, J.) Kamlesh U T