Punam Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39998 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -72 Year- 2013 Thana -BIHPUR District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Punam Kumari wife of Arbind Kumar Pandit, Resident of VillageKurpat, P.S.-Sabour, District-Bhagalpur. At present Posted as Headmistress Primary School, Mandal tola Bhawanipur, P.S.-Bihpur, District-Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bidhanesh Misra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 20-12-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Bihpur P.S. case No.72 of 2013 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner, Incharge Headmistress of Primary School, Mandal Tola, Bihpur, Bhagalpur, is informant of the case. She alleged that vide cheque No. 979593 Rs. 1,02,600/- was withdrawn in the name of Banti Kumar and vide cheque No. 274475 Rs. 17,500/- was withdrawn in the name of Saurabh Kumar after forging the signatures of informant, Incharge Headmistress, and Sarita Kumari, Secretary of the school.

Sri Bidhanesh Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner did not put signature on any of the cheques and both the cheques were missing from the office of Incharge Headmistress. The petitioner disputed her signature and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39998 of 2016 (4) dt.20-12-2016 2/2 claimed that her signature and signature of the Secretary of the school were forged. Specimen of the signature of the petitioner was obtained and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and after comparison it was found that specimen signature of the petitioner did not tally with the signature on both the cheques. It is further submitted that Banti Kumar and Himanshu Kumar have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Naugachia and the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, respectively. The petitioner is ready to deposit the money within two months and the money shall be withdrawn after result of the case.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, the above named petitioner, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in Bihpur P.S. Case No. 72 of 2013, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T