Rina Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67719 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2608 Year-2022 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== Rina Devi W/O Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Yadav Ex- Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Gheghwa, Resident of Village- Phajilpur, Police StationRajepur, District- East Champaran at Motihari ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Patna 2.

Rajnish Kumar Pandey S/O Dharmendra Kumar Pandey Resident of VillageRaghunathpur, Police Station- Raghunathpur O.P., District- East Champaran at Motihari ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Harendra Prasad, A.P.P.

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, complainant is a contractor and for the purpose of installation of LED light in the Panchayat and village under the government scheme, this petitioner and another co-accused contacted the complainant and entered into an agreement for Rs 25,50,000/- for installation of 600 LED lights in the Panchayat and village. It is stated that the complainant installed the same in the Panchayat and village as per contract made between the complainant and the petitioner and other accused for which the accused persons gave Rs. 5,07,500/- to the complainant and assured him to return the remaining amount after withdrawal of money. After some time, complainant came to know that the accused persons withdrew

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67719 of 2025(4) dt.02-02-2026 2/2 the money and when the complainant demanded his remaining amount, they started making excuses, which shows that the accused persons cheated the complainant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is former Mukhia and she is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to political rivalry for getting wrongful gain. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State and the informant oppose the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the nature and gravity of accusation, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashi/- U T