Priyanka Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28816 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2023 Thana- SAHIYARA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Priyanka Kumari WIFE OF Raushan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar Baitha RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NARHA JAGDAR, PS- SAHIYARA, DISTSITAMARHI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dilip Kumar No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 20-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned APP for the State.

2.

Petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Sahiyara P.S. Case No.122 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 420 and 409/34 of the IPC.

3.

Allegation against the petitioner is of defalcating quintals of paddy. 2135 quintals of paddy was kept in the godown but on physical verification, only 262.19 quintals of paddy was found, which was less than the paddy kept in the godown, which caused loss to the Government.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner came to know that some unknown persons have set fire inside the godown after breaking the window, thereafter, she went there and found ashes of burnt paddy, for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28816 of 2024(5) dt.20-09-2024 2/2 which, she instituted a case bearing Sahiyara P.S. Case No.82 of 2023. It is submitted that petitioner was a Computer Operator and there is no specific allegation against her. She was not aware of the purchase or payment of advice and in fact, there was no embezzlement and the purchase was made by the Chairman of PAX, which is evident from the payment Advice Register of Financial Year 2022-2023 (Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition). Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is specific allegation against the petitioner. 6.

Considering that huge public money is involved in this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on her behalf is hereby rejected. 7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

8.

However, petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order, preferably, on the same day, in accordance with law, considering that the petitioner is an unmarried female.

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