Premlata Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51370 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2023 Thana- KORMA District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== Premlata Devi Wife Of Mithilesh Kewat @ Amit Kumar Resident Of VillageGangaur, Ps- Korma, Dist- Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bipin Kumar. Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 23-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking prearrest bail in connection with Korma P.S. Case No. 51 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has one criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph '3' of the application.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant, who happened to be the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Gangaur, alleged that in Ward No. 03 of village - Gangaur under Plan no. 04/19-20 of Gram Panchayat Raj, the work of earth filling and lying bricks was checked by senior Deputy collector, Sheikhpura and have been found irregularity in the work. The accused persons are jointly involved in misappropriation of Government funds.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51370 of 2023(2) dt.23-08-2023 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lady and has been falsely implicated in this case.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that public money to the tune of Rs. 4,25,000/- has been withdrawn by the petitioner and the co-accused without doing any work under the scheme and this petitioner being Ward Member is one of the signatories to the cheque. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case wherein the allegation is of withdrawal of public money which was meant for the welfare scheme of the government and that money has been misappropriated, this petitioner is one of the signatories to the cheque and it was her responsibility to ensure the financial discipline, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, thus, refused.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T