IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56103 of 2007 REYAJUDDIN ANSARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- Cr.Misc. No.708 of 2008 ASHNA KHATOON @ JAHAN ARA @ ASHMA KHATOON Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 8/05/2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Since both these bail applications arise out of one and the same case, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. This is a case under sections 420, 419, 418, 465, 467, 471, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is said that the son of the informant-complainant was in service at Dubai. He met with an accident while being in service. So, a compensation amounting to Rs. 21 lacs and odd was allowed by the Company in favour of the complainant as she was shown to be the sole nominee of the deceased. The allegation against petitioner Reyajuddin Ansari @ Md. Reyajuddin Ansari is that he got a forged power of attorney prepared in his favour, though the said power of attorney was not executed by the complainant and received a cheque of the compensation amount on her behalf. Later on it is said that a co- accused of the case got an account opened in the Bank in the name of the complainant by setting up accused petitioner Ashma Khatoon and got the amount of the cheque deposited in her account and later on Rs. - 2 - 19 lacs was transferred from the account of Ashma Khatoon impersonating as Most. Maimunnisa. The complainant informant after coming to know the entire facts filed the complaint case. Learned counsel for petitioner Reyajuddin Ansari submitted that annexures 2 and 3 would show that the entire money was deposited in the account of accused petitioner Ashma Khatoon and Rs.19 lacs was transferred on the same day in the account of another co-accused Harishchandra Shrivastava. Therefore, the petitioner had no hand in taking away or receiving the money. Learned counsel for petitioner Ashma Khatoon submitted that she is an illiterate lady and co-accused of the case Harishchandra Shrivastava duped her and got an account opened in her name and thereafter the money was transferred in his account. Petitioner Ashma Khatoon after knowing the entire things filed a complaint case against the said Harishchandra Shrivastava. Learned counsel for the informant-complainant submitted that it was only petitioner Reyazuddin Ansari who was working at Dubai in the same company with the deceased and it was only known to him that compensation money has been awarded in favour of the complainant. He got the power of attorney executed and received the cheque and thereafter the said cheque was never given in the hands of the informant. Therefore, the petitioners and other co-accused of the case under a conspiracy misappropriated the entire compensation money of the informant. Regarding petitioner Ashna Khatoon @ Jahan Ara alias - 3 - Ashma Khatoon, learned counsel for the informant submitted that it is un-acceptable that she was not knowing that such kind of offence was being committed at the hands of her brother Mobin Ansari, who is accused no. 3 in the present case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I do not feel inclined to release petitioner Reyajuddin Ansari @ Md. Reyajuddin Ansari @ Md. Reyajuddin on bail. His prayer for bail is, therefore, rejected. So far the prayer for bail of petitioner Ashna Khatoon @ Jahan Ara @ Ashma Khatoon is concerned, she appears to be an illiterate lady and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, she is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 411/2006. (Rekha Kumari, J.) AMIN