Juli @ Muskan Khatoon @ Muskan Praween v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46531 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-466 Year-2023 Thana- NARHATT District- Nawada ====================================================== JULI @ MUSKAN KHATOON @ MUSKAN PRAWEEN WIFE OF MD. TASLIM VILLAGE- AND PS- NARHAT, DIST- NAWADA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kaushal Kishor, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ahmad Ali, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 24-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

Petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Narhat P.S. Case No.466 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 420, 379 of the IPC.

3.

The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner and her husband used to provide loan to different persons from Bandhan Bank and other bank and for that used to take photocopy of the their Aadhar Card along with signature. It is alleged that husband of the petitioner told the informant that Government is giving loan of Rs.Two Lakh without interest, for which Rs.50,000/- is to be deposited as an agreement expense. Then the informant deposited her passbook and started giving money to them and agreement money was deposited but when no loan amount came in the account, then informant and others got

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46531 of 2024(2) dt.24-07-2024 2/2 suspicion. Thereafter the petitioner and her husband fled away from their house.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. She has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No such occurrence, as alleged has ever taken place. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. There is no documentary evidence to prove that the informant has given money to the petitioner. 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 of cheating innocent people.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on her behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

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