IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1050 of 2007 MRS.VEENA RANI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 30.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the bank account in question which has been frozen there is no evidence to show that the account belongs to the present petitioner alone because the account is in the name of the husband as well as the wife with an instruction either or survivors. The husband of the petitioner Ram Sundar Sah is stated to be an employee of the bank of the respondent who was holding the post of Assistant-cum-Cashier. Allegation is that large amount of money was defalcated by him and the ledger shows that probably it was deposited in this account. Surcharge proceeding is initiated against him but he has been evading. Liability has come to be fixed upon him but the amount has not been made over to the Bank. Submission of learned counsel is that the account in question in which ISTRI DHAN has been deposited. The husband is simply an account holder of the account. The allegation of the respondent is arbitrary per sey. The above position cannot be certified looking at the nature of the account and the material which has been brought on record by the respondent. The Court is not satisfied with the merit and bona fide of the present litigation. No order or direction is required to be - 2 - issued. The petitioner would be well advised to ensure that the husband needs to take the obligation under law to facilitate the operation of the present account. This writ application has not merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)