Usha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondent State and Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

¶11

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chas P.S.Case No.359 of 2023, for the offence registered under sections 406, 408, 419, 420, 379, 34 IPC, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happened to be the Head Mistress of the school namely, Sahajanand Saraswati Balika Uchh Vidyalaya. He submits that the allegation is made that governing body of the school has decided to pay the salary to the trained-teachers, however, the government aid received by the school has also been disbursed to the non-trained teachers including the petitioner. He submits that bona-fidely the salary has been released in favour of the teachers who were discharging the duty in the said school and they were not getting their salary for a long time and the amount has been disbursed in the year 2022. He submits that in identical situation the Secretary of the said school has been provided privilege of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No.10868 of 2023.

¶13

Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned State counsel opposed the prayer on the ground that there are allegations of defalcation of amount and in view of that the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected

¶14

Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶15

2

¶16

O.P.No.2/informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the ground that this petitioner has also taken the salary and she is a non-trained teacher. He submits that further manipulation is made to save herself and the others and this has happened against the direction of the general body meeting and on this ground, he submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

¶17

In the FIR the allegation is made that payment has been made to the trained and non-trained teachers and it is alleged that the said amount is defalcated by the petitioner and there is allegation that the petitioner has also taken the salary being a non-trained teacher. In the FIR it has been disclosed by the fact-finding committee that the amount is paid to the non-trained teachers. Thus, it is crystal clear that being the salary, the amount has been disbursed either to the trained teachers or the non-trained teachers and the petitioner is the Head Mistress of the school and the salary has been disbursed to the trained and the non-trained teachers, and the Secretary of the school has been provided privilege of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No.10868 of 2023, and in the attending facts and circumstances, I am inclined to provide privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is hereby directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender/arrest, the petitioner, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in connection with Chas P.S.Case No.359 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶20

SI/Sangam

Usha Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahalal Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Malti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hiralal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laxman Bharti Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shweta Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Goma Purty Vs the State of Jharkhand