IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12822 of 2011 BABY DEVI @ BABY KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIG with Cr.Misc. No.14855 of 2011 SHAKUNTALA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6 20.05.2011 Both the above said petitions arise out of Town P.S.Case No.401 of 2010 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 13(C)of the Prevention of Corruption Act and accordingly, both the above said petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsels appearing for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. Admittedly, both the petitioners were posted as constables at the relevant time. It is alleged that one S.K.Choudhary, working as Accountant in Headquarters of police, district-Muzaffarpur, by committing irregularities and illegalities siphoned off government fund to the tune of Rs.6,00,00,000/-(six crores). Subsequently, raids were made at the houses of the petitioners and in huge quantity; ornaments, cash and documents of saving accounts were recovered from the houses of both the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing in Cr.Misc.No.14855 of 2011 submits that the petitioner is quite innocent and as a matter of fact, the salary account of the petitioner was 2 misused by the main accused, namely, S.K.Choudhary and that is the reason when the raid was made at the houses of co-accused S.K.Choudhary, the A.T.M. card of the saving accounts of the petitioner was recovered. It is also contended by him that the petitioner comes from a prosperous family and she owns 100 acres of ancestral land and as a matter of fact, the husband of the petitioner was a contractor who had also earned a lot but the police officials seized almost all the ornaments and cash from the house of the petitioner. It is also contended by him that the learned court below has held that no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out and according to the prosecution case itself, it was co- accused S.K.Choudhary who defalcated the government money. It is also pointed out by him that one co-accused, namely, Anita Choudhary who happens to be the wife of main accused S.K.Choudhary has already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail and the case of this petitioner stands on better footing to that of co-accused Anita Choudhary. Almost similar argument is advanced on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.Misc.No.12822 of 2011 adding this fact that only two lacs and odd in cash, has been recovered from the house of the above said petitioner. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance vehemently opposes the prayer for bail submitting that huge amount had been deposited in the saving accounts of the petitioner and as a matter of fact, the 3 aforesaid amount was defalcated amount. It is also contended by him that both petitioners, in connivance of main co- accused S.K.Choudhary, facilitated him to digest the defalcated amount and that is why, both the petitioners provided their saving account numbers to main accused S.K.Choudhary. Having heard the contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the record along with Photostat copy of the case diary which has been provided by learned counsel for the petitioners. In my view, it is not a fit case for grant of privilege of bail to the petitioners because near about rupees six crores of government money has been defalcated by main co-accused S.K.Choudhary and the petitioners also played an important role in facilitating him to deposit the aforesaid defalcated money in their saving accounts. Therefore, prayer for bail of the petitioners stands rejected. However, if the trial of the petitioners is not concluded within six months, they may renew their prayer for bail. AKV/ ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)