Mamta Devi @ Mamta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46034 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2024 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Buxar ====================================================== Mamta Devi @ Mamta Kumari Wife of Abhiranjan Kumar @ Raviranjan Kumar Resident of Village- Semariyan Dhansoi, P.S.-Dhansoin, Distt.- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr.Advocate.
: Mr.Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms.Rita Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-07-2025 Heard Mr.Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Rita Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 09.03.2025 in connection with Buxar Cyber P.S. Case No. 41 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 25.10.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406,419,420,467,468,471 of IPC and Section 66(C),66(D) of the I.T.Act.
3. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner and co-accused, namely, Rinki Devi told various women of the village that Prime Minister is giving Rs. 200/- per month to women holding B.P.L. Cards. To take this advantage, all the women of the village got a new SIM card in their names by
2/4 giving their Aadhar card. The fee charged for getting the SIM was also paid by the petitioner and co-accused, namely, Rinki Devi. After this, the petitioner and co-accused, namely, Rinki Devi again took the Aadhar Card of all the women and got online accounts opened for 34 women in different banks and ATM cards given by the banks were also kept by them. On 10.10.2024, the petitioner told the informant that her account has been freezed due to technical issue and Rs. 13,000- from the said account has also been freezed. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs. 10,000/- to withdraw Rs. 13,000/- from the said account and also to get her account active. Later on, the informant found that fraudulent transactions were being made from her account. It is alleged that the petitioner and other accused persons committed cyber fraud with the informant and other women.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per allegation in the FIR, total transactions were being made by the petitioner after getting the Sim change and apart from that, the petitioner has also obtained for the informant and other persons. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated. Although
3/4 the petitioner also opened the bank account on the basis of the assurance given by co-accused, namely, Rinki Devi and petitioner has no role at all in the present crime in question and she has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground that she has pursued other persons to open the account. The petitioner is in custody since 09.03.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner named in the FIR and apart from that, it appears from the FIR that she has participated in the present crime in question and she has pursued other persons to open the account.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact, petitioner has clean antecedent and she also opened the account on the direction of co-accused, namely, Rinki Devi, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in connection with Buxar Cyber P.S. Case No. 41 of 2024, with the following conditions:- (I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
4/4 and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T