Patna High Court - Orders
Kiran Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 18 March, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Sinha
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6799 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-550 Year-2022 Thana- BIKRAMGANJ District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Kiran Devi Wife of Sunil Sah @ Sunil Kumar Resident of Village- Samhuta,
P.S.- Rohtas, Distt.- Rohtas, State- Bihar
2. Gyanti devi Wife of Panna Lal Gupta Resident of Vilage- Kaithpur, P.s.-
Mughal Sarai, Distt.- Chandauli, State- Uttar Pradesh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyanka Devi Wife of Late Harendra Kumar Resident of Village- Mathiya,
P.S.- Bikramganj, Distt.- Rohtas
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Krishna Nishant
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala
For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Varun Krishna Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-03-20251. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Bikramganj Police Station Case No. 550 of 2022, dated 20.11.2022, disclosing offences under Sections 406/420/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR-cum-complaint, the husband of the informant died in an accident on 25.01.2019 while working in Parth Engineering Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6799 of 2025(2) dt.18-03-2025 2/4 Company, Pen, Raigarh and a huge amount i.e. more than Rs. Four Lakh was given to the informant/complainant by the Company, which was withdrawn by the accused persons under conspiracy after taking advantage of illiteracy of the informant/complainant and in connivance with each other, including the Branch Manager of the Canara Bank, who added the name of Devanti Devi (complainant's mother-in-law) in the pension/compensation/death benefit account of the complainant/informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are married Nanad of the informant/complainant. Petitioner no. 1 resides with her husband at another village in her matrimonial home and the petitioner no. 2 resides in Uttar Pradesh having no concern with the family affairs of the complainant/informant and other accused persons. Referring to the impugned order, learned counsel submits that during the course of investigation no material has come against the petitioners to connect them with the present offence, whereas, learned District and Additional Sessions Judge IX, Rohtas, Sasaram, has taken note of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6799 of 2025(2) dt.18-03-2025 3/4 various paragraphs of the case diary showing that money was misappropriated by transferring to various amount from the account of the informant in the account of co- accused persons and not a single transfer/transaction of the amount was made to the petitioners from the account of the informant/complainant and during investigation also nothing has come against the petitioners regarding the same.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioners, along with accused persons, in conspiracy and with malafide intention misappropriated the amount of pension/compensation/death benefit of the informant/complainant, which was transferred in her account by the Company after the death in harness of complainant's husband.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record, including the impugned order.
7. It appears that the petitioners are married Nanad of the informant/complainant and during course of investigation, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6799 of 2025(2) dt.18-03-2025 4/4 the police has found various withdrawal/transfer transactions from the account of the informant to the accounts of other accused persons, but no materila has been brought on record to show that money withdrawn from the account of informant was also given or transferred in the accounts of the petitioners, accordingly, considering the fact that the petitioners are married Nanad of the informant, I am inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. This application is, accordingly, allowed.
9. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate I, Bikramganj, Rohtas, in connection with Bikramganj Police Station Case No. 550 of 2022, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ashwani/-
U T