Gayatri Devi vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4869 Patna

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 49007 of 2021
     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2021 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada
  ======================================================

Gayatri Devi, aged about 77 years, Female Wife of Late Arjun Prasad Rajak, Resident of and PO- Dosut, PS- Warsaliganj, District - Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

  For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
  For the State           :       Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-10-2021

The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of

motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioner, which was

allowed.

2. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Warsaliganj PS Case No. 138 of 2021 dated 24.04.2021, instituted

under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. The allegation against the petitioner, who at the

relevant point of time was the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj

Dosut in Warsaliganj block of Nawada district, is that the toilet Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49007 of 2021 dt.05-10-2021

under the MENREGA meant for the weaker sections of the society

for which payments have been made, was not constructed to the

tune of Rs. 1,88,600/-.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

there were two enquiries held, one initially on a complaint and

later on under the direction of the Lokayukta on the basis of some

complaint and in the second enquiry, it has come that the persons

who are said to be the complainant had stated that they had never

made any complaint. Further, learned counsel submitted that the

scheme and payment related to the year 2013-14 whereas the

enquiry itself has been made in the year 2017 and surprisingly,

one of the findings is that the constructed place was not being

used as a toilet but for some other purpose and in some, there is

finding of there being partial construction only. Learned counsel

submitted that the role of Mukhiya is only recommending the

beneficiary and thereafter making payment to them under the

scheme and the construction is to be done by the beneficiaries

themselves in which the Mukhiya i.e., the petitioner has no role.

Further, it was submitted that the petitioner is a lady, aged 77

years, having retired from the post of Government school teacher

in the year 2004 and is suffering from cancer. Learned counsel

submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49007 of 2021 dt.05-10-2021

6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner being the

Mukhiya was responsible for improper use of fund.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of

the role of the petitioner being only in identifying the beneficiaries

and not in construction and there being no allegation of any

beneficiary being fictitious and she being a lady aged 77 years, the

Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

8. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender before

the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioner be

released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-

(twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each

to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Nawada in Warsaliganj PS Case No. 138 of 2021, subject to the

conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and further, (i) that one of the bailors shall be a

close relative of the petitioner and (ii) that the petitioner shall co-

operate with the Court and police/prosecution. Failure to co-

operate shall lead to cancellation of her bail bonds.

9. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any

violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioner, to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49007 of 2021 dt.05-10-2021

notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action

on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

                     10.    The     petition      stands     disposed         of   in   the

           aforementioned terms.


                                               (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR
U
T