Rinku Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37726 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2022 Thana- NOKHA District- Rohtas ====================================================== RINKU DEVI W/O YOGESH SINGH R/O Village- Hariharpur, PS. Nokha, Dist. Rohtas ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 01-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the learned court below.

3. Accusation against the petitioner is of misappropriating Rs.28,55,100/- under the Mukhya Mantri Gramin Peyajal Yojna.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is ward member of the concerned ward in Ghusiyan Gram Panchayat. He submits that during the investigation there is no cogent material against the petitioner. He further submits that Mukhiya and Panchayat

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37726 of 2023(2) dt.01-08-2023 2/2 Secretary of the concerned Panchayat was also to supervise the work but none has objected regarding the alleged work. He further submits that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail application and submits there is allegation against the petitioner that the amount of Rs.28,55,100/- was transferred in join account of the petitioner and ward secretary for expenditure under the 'Mukhya Mantri Gramin Peyjal Yojana' and the petitioner has given the aforesaid money to the Baba Enterprise Company to do the work on the recommendation of the committed of the work and only the work of Rs.13,51,000/- was done which is also mentioned in the measurement book. In this way Rs. 15,04,100/- was misappropriated by the accused person. Hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Nokha P.S. Case No. 64/2022. Accordingly, her prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

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