Kanti Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61322 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-359 Year-2017 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

KANTI DEVI Wife of Late Deoraj Ram Resident of Village- Kohada, Police Station- Yogapatti, District- West Champaran. 2.

Vinod Prasad Son of Kashi Mahto Resident of Village- Kohada, P.S.- Yogapatti, District- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, petitioners are alleged to have attempted to withdraw money from Shriram Life Insurance Company by submitting fake death certificate. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case. It is submitted that till today petitioners have not received any farthing from the complainant and as per FIR only attempt was made. As a matter of fact petitioners have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61322 of 2021(2) dt.11-07-2022 2/2 committed no offence. It is next submitted that petitioner No.1 submitted application to the Insurance Company claiming death compensation which was rejected on the ground that life insurance was taken after the death of Late Deoraj Ram and for that Complaint case No. 05/2021 has already been filed by petitioner No.1 before District Consumer Forum, Bettiah for realization of claim amount. Petitioners have got clean antecedent.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts of the case and clean antecedent of the petitioners, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest/ surrender within a period of six weeks from today shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate14, Patna in connection with Gandhi Maidan PS case No. 359/2017, subject to conditions laid down u/s 438(2) of the Cr. P. C.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) BKS/- U T