Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39384 of 2012 (2) dt.16-10-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.39384 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Ram Sanehi Manjhi S/O Chanu Manjhi @ Late Chandra Manjhi Resident Of Village- Mishra Bandhawara, P.S.- Bijaypur, District- Gopalganj 2. Rajesh Manjhi S/O Chanu Manjhi @ Late Chandra Manjhi Resident Of Village- Mishra Bandhawara, P.S.- Bijaypur, District- Gopalganj 3. Ramgyan Manjhi S/O Late Bhanu Manjhi Resident Of Village- Mishra Bandhawara, P.S.- Bijaypur, District- Gopalganj 4. Ramdhayan Manjhi S/O Late Bhanu Manjhi Resident Of Village- Mishra Bandhawara, P.S.- Bijaypur, District- Gopalganj 5. Ram Niwas Manjhi S/O Late Bhanu Manjhi Resident Of Village- Mishra Bandhawara, P.S.- Bijaypur, District- Gopalganj 6. Prantak Manjhi S/O Late Bhanu Manjhi Resident Of Village- Mishra Bandhawara, P.S.- Bijaypur, District- Gopalganj 7. Sahansah Manjhi S/O Bhanu Manjhi Resident Of Village- Mishra Bandhawara, P.S.- Bijaypur, District- Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 16-10-2012 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] . It is alleged that the petitioner on the basis of a forged sale deed dated 21.7.1937 got the mutation done in his name on the land of the informant. It is submitted that on the basis of sale deed mutation Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39384 of 2012 (2) dt.16-10-2012 was done and against the mutation order appeal was filed before the DCLR by the informant which was dismissed when proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. was also decided in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the informant that on the basis of information received by the informant under Right to Information Act it was found that there was no sale deed on record as claimed by the petitioner. Considering the nature of accusation, let the above named petitioners be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of twelve weeks from today on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Gopalganj in connection with Bijaipur P.S. Case No. 70 of 2012 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Anil/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 476

Statute Text:
Section 476 of the Indian Penal Code. Counterfeiting a device or mark used for authenticating documents other than those described in section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, or possessing counterfeit marked material. Whoever counterfeits upon, or in the substance of, any material, any device or mark used for the purpose of authenticating any document other than the documents described in section 467 of this Code, intending that such device or mark shall be used for the purpose of giving the appearance of authenticity to any document then forged or thereafter to be forged on such material, or who with such intent, has in his possession any material upon or in the substance of which any such device or mark has been counterfeited, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.