← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40631/2020rejected

Janak Dulari Devi @ Dulari Devi v. The State Of Bihar Through The Cabinet Vigilance, Bihar, Patna

2021-12-06Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40631 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2018 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna ====================================================== JANAK DULARI DEVI @ DULARI DEVI WIFE OF DEVENDRA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF KANHAULI, DHANRAJ, P.S. - MAHUWA, DISTRICT - VAISHALI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET VIGILANCE, BIHAR, PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Spl.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 06-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Vigilance P.S. Case No.57 of 2018 registered under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988 and 13(1)(b) of the P.C. Act (Amended), 1988.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in the present case only because that the petitioner happens to be the wife of co-accused Devendra Prasad. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by contending that several

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40631 of 2020(7) dt.06-12-2021 2/2 properties have been purchased in the name this petitioner by accused Devendra Prasad Singh (husband). Total income of the petitioner and her husband has been shown as Rs.47,89,719/- but the petitioner and her husband made expenses of Rs.1,29,72,823.92. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, her prayer for bail is rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) Harish/- U T