Dharamshila Devi v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.48536 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -191 Year- 2016 Thana -JAGDIHSPUR District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Dharamshila Devi, Wife of Wirendra Kumar Singh, Resident of village and P.O. Baghaniaon, P.S. Jagdispur, District-Bhojpur (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar,
2. The BSFC through Co-operative Extension Officer, Jagdishpur, Block and P.S. Jagdispur, District-Bhojpur.
.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Jagdispur P.S. Case No. 191 of 2016, registered under Sections 419, 420, 468, 469 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-XI, Bhojpur at Ara.
The accusation is that 3933 quintals paddy was purchased by the petitioner being the Chairman, PACS to supply 67% C.M.R. rice after milling to the BSFC. But only 25 MT rice was supplied to the BSFC and rest 238.511 MT rice worth Rs. 5019402.06 was misappropriated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48536 of 2016 (8) dt.22-08-2017 2/2 paddy, which was said to be purchased by the petitioner being the Chairman of the PACS, was supplied for milling, but rice miller could not return the total rice after milling. The petitioner has lodged the F.I.R. against the proprietor of concerned Rice Mill vide Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 105 of 2016, under Section 406, 420, 467, 471 and 468 of the I.P.C.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trail Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T