Rajni Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5868 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -7 Year- 2017 Thana -KHAIRA District- JAMUI ====================================================== Rajni Devi, Wife of Manoj Kumar Singh, Resident of VillageMangobandar, P.S. Khera, District-Jamui. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 21-03-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Khaira P.S. Case No. 7 of 2017, registered under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui. The accusation is that in the light of order passed in the Write Petition filed by Sri Shankar Prasad Yadav regarding irregularities in the schemes of Gram Panchayat, Mangobandar, an inquiry was made at the district level and on the direction of the District Magistrate, Jamui, Khaira P.S. Case No. 142 of 2015 was lodged on 24.06.2015 against Panchayat Rozgar Sevak and Khaira P.S. Case No. 7 of 2017 was also lodged against Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5868 of 2017 (2) dt.21-03-2017 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, who was the Mukhiya, has no role in the irregularity committed in the schemes of Panchayat, rather the Panchayat Rozgar Sebak is responsible for the same.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner with submission that since the petitioner was the Mukhiya as such her role could not be denied in the irregularity committed in the scheme of the Panchayat.

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