Sunita Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22284 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-609 Year-2019 Thana- SIWAN CITY District- Siwan ====================================================== Sunita Tiwari wife of Binod Tiwari R/O AESBY Industrial Estate, P.S.- Sanjib Sarni Burdwan, Dist- Durgapur(West Bengal).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sr. Manager Canara Bank, Rajendra Path, P.S. - Siwan Sadar, Dist. - Siwan. Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mrs. Kumari Anupam, Advocate :
Mr. Ravish Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP For the Canara Bank :
Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026 Heard Mrs. Kumari Anupam, learned counsel for the petitioner duly assisted by Mr. Ravish Kumar and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP for the State as also Mr. Siddharth Harsh, learned counsel representing the Canara Bank.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Siwan Nagar P.S. Case No. 609 of 2019 registered for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 409, 34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 25.10.2019 by the informant, Surya Narayan Yadav.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Siwan alleged that his employee, Ratesh Kumar while posted in the Bank between 01.06.2018 to 31.08.2019
2/4 suspiciously transacted amount in the accounts of his relative including the petitioner to the tune of Rs.35,32,256.05/- (Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Six Rupees and Five Paisa Only). This led to the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she had no knowledge about the money transferred in her account by a relative and has been falsely dragged in this case. She has no criminal antecedent and is ready to return his Rs.91,000/- amount to the Bank which stood transferred by the accused Ratnesh Kumr.
5. Mr. Siddharth Harsh, learned counsel representing the Canara Bank submits that though the petitioner being the beneficiary naturally has been put in the category of accused, now that she is ready to return the amount, keeping the legal rights to pursue the F.I.R. lodged by the Bank, if relief is granted, they do not have objection.
6. Having heard the parties and taking into account the inclination of the lady to return Rs.91,000/- to the Bank by way of Demand Draft, has no criminal antecedent, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail subject to payment of Rs.91,000/- to Canara Bank by way of Demand Draft issued by the local Branch of
3/4 State Bank of India/any Nationalized Bank to be submitted at the time of execution of bail bond and after checking credentials to handed over to the said Bank.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, in connection with Siwan Nagar P.S. Case No. 609 of 2019 subject to the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document (Aadhar Card/Voter Id/Driving License/Pan Card) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police Station as and when required for cooperating in the investigation;
(iii) the petitioner 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 bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner 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;
(vi) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T