Patna High CourtCR. MISC./83704/2024bail granted

Chetna Sri v. The State Of Bihar

2024-12-13Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83704 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-339 Year-2024 Thana- BEGUSARAI TOWN District- Begusarai ====================================================== Chetna Sri D/o - Manoj Kumar, W/o - Sonal Kumar Resident of VillageJairampur, P.S.- Bihpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur. At present Resident of VillageWard No. 40, Sarvoday Nagar, Behind the Mahanth College, P.S.- Town, Distt.- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-12-2024 Heard Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 339 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 20.06.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to the prosecution case, the father of the petitioner, namely, Manoj Kumar got into an agreement with the informant for purchase of land but after receiving the amount from the informant, the father of the petitioner neither executed the sale deed in favour of his nor return the money and she was the witness in that agreement.

2/4

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the petitioner is daughter of co-accused namely Sarita Devi and daughter of co-accused person namely Manoj Kumar and the said Manoj Kumar had taken the amount from the informant and the petitioner has no concern with the alleged amount and the petitioner has been made accused merely on the ground that she is daughter of co-accused Manoj Kumar and apart from that petitioner is also the witness of the agreement. He further submits that co-accused namely Sarita Devi against whom the similar allegation that she was also the witness of the agreement and she is wife of co-accused Manoj Kumar has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 01.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 64314 of 2024.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and the petitioner is daughter of co-accused namely Manoj Kumar and co-accused Sarita Devi who happens to be the mother of the petitioner has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by

3/4 this Court, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in connection with Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 339 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions :-

(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

4/4 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U