Allowed

Rani Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Mar 2024CR. MISC./84953/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-arrest bail sought by a Mukhiya accused of illegally withdrawing Panchayat funds from bank account. Court found petitioner's role limited to signing cheques and the alleged amount had been credited back, granting anticipatory bail with conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two like sureties, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

Rani Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84953 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2020 Thana- MEHSI District- East Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Rani Devi Wife of Madan Prasad Yadav @ Madan Yadav, Resident Of Village- Mahamaddo, Police Station- Mehsi, District- East Champaran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 07-03-2024

¶14

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel

¶15

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.

¶16

Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Mehsi P.S.Case No.89 of 2020, G.R.No.2129 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code .

¶17

Prosecution story in brief is that the petitioner along with the other co-accused persons illegally withdrawn a sum of Rs.38,03,500/- of Parsauni Devajit Panchayat from the Bihar Regional Gramin Bank Account No.1001881030080539 through cheque in connivance with the accused named in the FIR.

¶18

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84953 of 2023(3) dt.07-03-2024 2/3

¶20

appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that no misappropriation of the public fund has been done by the petitioner, who is the Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel further submitted that the role of Mukhiya is only to pass the Yojna in Aam Sabha and the work has to be executed by the Ward Implementation Committee. So far as the complicity of the petitioner is concerned, he being Mukhiya has to sign the cheque but has no role in either to purchase the materiel or to execute the work. He further submitted that as per the certificate granted by the Branch Manager of the concerned bank where the Account of the Panchayat is existing, he has reported that the entire amount, as alleged in the FIR by the Block Development Officer, has already been credited into the account of the Panchayat. Learned counsel in these backgrounds has submitted that it is the Block Development Officer, who vested with mala fide intention in colourable exercise of power, has lodged the FIR against the petitioner. Petitioner has clean antecedent and he may be released on bail.

¶21

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Having considered the rival submissions made on

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84953 of 2023(3) dt.07-03-2024 3/3

¶24

behalf of the parties, as well as, the petitioner has only to sign the cheque and there is no role of the petitioner either to purchase the material or execute the work and the entire amount has been credited into the account of the Panchayat, the petitioner is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Motihari/concerned court, in connection with Mehsi P.S.Case No.89 of 2020, GR.No.2129 of 2022, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶25

The court below is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is involved in some other cases as what has been stated in paragraph No.3 of the bail application, this order will automatically lose its force.

¶26

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶27

chn/-

¶28

Rani Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani 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

Mithlesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vimal Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Shobha Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Deepak Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pooja Devi @ Neha Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Hannan Vs The State of Bihar