Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sunita DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied; the application was dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Sunita Devi, filed an anticipatory bail application in a case (PS. Case No.23 of 2025) alleging offences under sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, relating to an alleged embezzlement of Rs.24,80,735 from several Jiwika Samooh. The petitioner contended that she was falsely implicated and that, as a Bank Mitra, she never received any money. The court examined the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the economic offence. Considering the gravity of the accusations, the judge was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application was dismissed and the petitioner was ordered to surrender before the lower court within four weeks to seek regular bail, with the Superintendent of Police directed to effect her arrest if she fails to do so.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 in view of the alleged embezzlement.
  • Whether the nature of the economic offence justifies denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • economic offence
  • embezzlement
  • section 318
  • section 316
  • bail denial
  • Bihar

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81025 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2025 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad
                 ======================================================
                 Sunita Devi Son of Surendra Thakur R/o Village - Akaoni, P.S. - Rafiganj,
                 Dist. - Aurangabad.
                                                                            ... ... Petitioner
                                                 Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                     ... ... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner     :        Ms. Mukul Kumari, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party :        Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   13-03-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned APP for the State.

                                  2.        This application for anticipatory bail arises

                   out of Rafiganj P.S. Case No.23 of 2025 for the offence under

                   sections 318(4), 316(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.

                                  3.        The petitioner and others are said to have

                   embezzled Rs.24,80,735/- of several Jiwika Samooh.

                                  4.        Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

                   that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He

                   further submits that the petitioner is the Bank Mitra of Jiwika

                   Samooh and she has never received any amount.

                                  5.        Considering the nature of allegation levelled

                   against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail

                   to the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

                   The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81025 of 2025(4) dt.13-03-2026
                                                          2/2




                        without four weeks from today and pray for regular bail, failing

                        which, the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad will take all

                        steps for arresting the petitioner.

                                        6.      Let a copy of this order be communicated to

                        the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, forthwith through

                        FAX or e-mail for its compliance.


                                                                   (Sandeep Kumar, J)

pawan/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.