Sharda Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61311 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2021 Thana- AGRER District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

SHARDA DEVI Wife of Santosh Kumar Roy Resident of Village - Gotpa, P.S.- Agrer, District - Rohtas 2.

Sushila Devi Wife of Binod Chandrabanshi Resident of Village - Gotpa, P.S.- Agrer, District - Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raghunandan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit ====================================================== 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, Rs. 11, 90, 800/- was allotted to ward No.4 of Mahaddiganj, Gram Panchayat under Mukhyamantri Gramin Peyajal Nischya Yojna and the money was withdrawn but work was done only worth Rs. 92,309/- and rest of the amount was misappropriated.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 is president of Ward Kriyanavayan Awam Prabandhan Samiti, Gram

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61311 of 2021(2) dt.11-07-2022 2/2 Panchayat, Mahadiganj, Ward No.4 and petitioner No.2 is Secretary and work was to be executed by Manish Sinha and petitioners have nowhere involved in execution of the work. It is next submitted that on 31.05.2019 petitioners made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas District Magistrate, DY S.P., Inspector for lodging the FIR against the Mukhiya, Pratima Devi, Gramsevak Arvind Singh and their associates, Manish Sinha and Sunil Singh but these authorities did not take any action on the application and thereafter the informant lodged this case with sole intention to save his skin. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that in spite of withdrawal of money work was not completed and the amount was misappropriated by the petitioners and other accused persons.

Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) BKS/- U T