IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5813 of 2011 SINDHU DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.11362 of 2011 SUBHASH YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 13.05.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners being the Panchayat Mukhiya and her husband are apprehending their arrest in a case registered under Sections 405, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the report submitted by the Panchayat Mukhiya to B.D.O. that Panchayat Sewak has withdrawn Rs. 8,16,000/- by forging the signature of the Mukhiya when the F.I.R was registered against the Panchayat Sewak, Parsuram Kumar and the Central Co-operative Bank, Subsequently, during investigation, it is found that the money was withdrawn with the signature of the Mukhiya, hence the husband of the Mukhiya was also made accused in the case. It is suggested by the bank officials that the husband of the Mukhiya used the fake 2 cheque of his wife to the bank and the payment was used to be made to him. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the cheques were issued in favour of the husband of the Mukhiya and the investigation is still going on and if the payments were made to the husband by the bank officials then the complicity of the bank officials cannot be ruled out. In the circumstance, let the above named petitioner of Cr. Misc No. 11362 of 2011 namely Subhash Yadav, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 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 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda in connection with Sarmera P.S. Case No. 51/2010, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. So far as, the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.5813 of 2011 namely Sindhu Devi is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere, however, let the learned court 3 below consider the regular bail application of the petitioner (Sindhu Devi) without being prejudiced by the order of this Court, keeping in mind that the petitioner is a lady. Amrendra/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)