Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16844 of 2012 ====================================================== Bindeshwari Yadav .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 08-05-2012 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in a complaint case in which cognizance has been taken under [STATUTE] . The accusation is of getting the mutation of the land done in favour of the petitioner’s wife on the basis of forged partition deed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the mutation was done in the year 1982-83 when the complaint was filed in the year 2003 which was initially dismissed but in pursuance to the revisional order, the cognizance order was passed on 22.04.2010. Considering the delayed accusation arising out of civil nature of dispute between the parties, let the above named petitioner be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16844 of 2012 (2) dt.08-05-2012 2/2 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 Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in connection with Complaint Case No. 724C of 2003, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Amrendra/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 471

Statute Text:
Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Using as genuine a forged document which is known to be forged. Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.