Allowed

Reena Devi v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Jan 2022CR. MISC./12950/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted anticipatory bail to petitioner Reena Devi pending her arrest in an FT summons case for cheating and forgery. Bail conditioned on future appearance at investigation.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount upon arrest or surrender, if appearance before investigation within six weeks and no attempt to evade process.

Reena Devi Vs the State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12950 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2020 Thana- BHANGWANPUR HAT District- Siwan

¶3

======================================================

¶4

REENA DEVI, W/o Munna Shankar Singh Resident of Village- Dilsadpur, P.S.- Bhagwanpur Hat, Distt- Siwan

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumod Kumar Shrivastaw For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Angad Kunwar Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra Mr. Amit Kashyap Ms. Pushpa Sinha ======================================================

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶10

4 18-01-2022

¶11

Heard Mr. Kumod Kumar Shrivastava, learned

¶12

Advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶13

The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of her arrest in connection with Bhagwanpur Hat P. S. Case No. 52 of 2020, dated 05.03.2020, instituted for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

The accusation in the FIR is that the petitioner and her husband collected approximately Rs. 50 lakhs from the informant and other investors for the purposes of depositing it in some scheme of the Post Office as the husband of the

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12950 of 2021(4) dt.18-01-2022 2/4

¶16

petitioner at the relevant time was working as a Postal Peon. However later, it transpired that the money so collected by the petitioner and her husband was deposited in the account of an Investment company and a bond also was given. Later, the bond could not be redeemed and despite the assurance of the petitioner and her husband that the money so invested by the informant and other investors shall be returned, the same has not yet been returned.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in the first instance is absolutely vague. The informant has not at all stated as to who all were the investors and what amount has he invested with the petitioner.

¶18

It has further been submitted that such vague FIR is not without a purpose. The informant himself had been a senior agent of the company (Investment company) in question and at his instance, the petitioner was made a subagent to work under him. The petitioner started working as sub-agent under the informant from 2013.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12950 of 2021(4) dt.18-01-2022 3/4

¶21

out that according to the FIR, money had been accepted from investors and the informant between the years 2012 to 2014. This obviously pre-supposes that before the petitioner could be inducted in the company as one of the sub-agents, the informant himself had been operating in the market and had been collecting money from various investors. In fact, the husband of the petitioner himselfself has invested about Rs. One lakh in the aforesaid company at the instance of the informant. The present litigation is only for the purposes of diverting the gaze of the investigating agency or of the complaining investors from him to somebody else, namely, the petitioner.

¶22

At this stage, Mr. Amit Kashyap, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the informant and has submitted that Rs. 50 lakhs which was given to the informant to be invested in post office, was invested in a private company.

¶23

Mr. Kahsyap did not furnish the details of such investors who along with the informant had invested Rs. 50 lakhs with the petitioner. There is nothing on record or in the argument of Mr. Kashyap to deny the averments made on

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12950 of 2021(4) dt.18-01-2022 4/4

¶25

behalf of the petitioner that she was inducted as a sub-agent of the informant in the year 2013.

¶26

Considering the afore-noted arguments on behalf of the parties, the petitioner, above-named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, in connection with Bhagwanpur Hat P. S. Case No. 52 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶27

However, it is cautioned that the petitioner shall participate in the investigative process and any attempt on her part to avoid the same would render her bail liable to be cancelled.

¶28

The application stands disposed off accordingly.

¶29

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶30

skm/-

¶31

U T

Reena Devi v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena Devi v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Jameel @ Md. Zaki Vs the State of Bihar

Satish Sharma Vs the State of Bihar

Ravi Ranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sujeet Kumar @ Mewalal Vs The State of Bihar

Gajendra Yadav @ Gajendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Mukesh Yadav Vs the State of Bihar