Rinku Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59907 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2023 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== Rinku Kumari Wife of Shambhu Prasad Gupta @ Shambhu Kumar Gupta R/O- Proprietor Saurya Industries Firm, Flat No. 202, Rani Sadan, New Laljitola, Near Cda Building, Ps- Gandhi Maidan, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Madan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 20-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. 3.

Allegedly, Firm, Saurya Industries supplied goods to the informant for which the payment was done. The petitioner (proprietor of the firm,) committed conspiracy and re-furnished the said paid bills after altering them for forgery and thereby tried to get repayment for already paid bills. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. She has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. Petitioner is the proprietor of the firm and used to supply stationary and other items to government offices. On 25.08.2020, the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59907 of 2024(3) dt.20-11-2024 2/2 submitted bills to the informant in which informant pointed defects on some bills and advised to modify the bill. On demand, the informant department paid Rs. 1,79,449/- on 05.02.2021 and Rs. 74,917/- on 09.03.2021 and thereafter the informant has not paid any bill to the petitioner and always evaded the payment stating that Dy. S.P. is not available and he is ill. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para 3 of the bail application.

5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. 6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No.158 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) priyanka/- U T