Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32153/2025bail rejected

Rinku Devi @ Rinku Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-01Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32153 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2024 Thana- RAHIKA District- Madhubani ====================================================== Rinku Devi @ Rinku Kumari, S/o Ramesh Jha, R/o Vill- Marar, P.S.- Rahika, Distt- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gagandev Yadav, Advocate Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Rahika P.S. Case No. 256 of 2024, dated15.11.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation, the construction of additional class-room has not been completed as per specification, nor the quality of construction has been maintained. Hence, action has been directed to be taken against the headmaster and members of the construction committee of the school concerned. As per further case of the prosecution, the Petitioner was also a member of the construction committee.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32153 of 2025(3) dt.01-09-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the Petitioner was no way involved in the operation and execution of the construction of the classroom.

5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.

6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.

8. Considering the nature of the allegation, I am not persuaded to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

9. The present petition is rejected, accordingly. (Jitendra Kumar, J.) Chandan/- U T