Ranju Devi @ Manju Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20624 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2018 Thana- CHANAN District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Ranju Devi @ Manju Devi, aged about 46 years, Female, Wife of Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Resident of Village Harbanspur, P.S. Chanan, District Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prakash Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nagendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 03-04-2019 Heard both sides.

Petitioner apprehends her arrest in Chanan P.S. Case No.165 of 2018, registered under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant, Block Education Officer, Chanan, alleged that Shailendra Kumar Sinha, Headmaster of Higher Middle School, Harbanspur situated in Chanan Block and the Secretary of the school withdrew Rs.16,13,700/- from the account of the school in the year 2014-15 for construction of school building but they neither constructed the school building nor returned the money and the petitioner and the Headmaster misappropriated the entire money.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner is an illiterate lady. The money was withdrawn by the Headmaster, namely, Shailendra Kumar Sinha and Shailendra Kumar Sinha

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20624 of 2019(2) dt.03-04-2019 2/2 filed an affidavit before the Sessions Judge at the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail petition that he had withdrawn the money. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to return the money but it appears from perusal of the FIR that the money meant for construction of the school building can only be withdrawn by joint signature of the Headmaster and the Secretary of the school. The Headmaster and Secretary of the school withdrew Rs.16,13,700/- for construction of the school building but they did not construct the school building and kept the money with them. If there was any encroachment on the land, the money withdrawn by the petitioner and the Headmaster of the school should have been returned immediately thereafter but the petitioner and the Headmaster of the school kept Rs.16,13,700/- with them for more than four years and thus misappropriated the huge amount of public money.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T