Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1868 of 2012 Jibendra Kumar Jha @ Jibendra Nath Jha, son of Late Deo Sundar Jha, resident of Village-Gajhara, P.S.-Ladaniya, District- Madhubani. ……..Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar …….Opp. Party.S -------------------- 2 18.01.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under [STATUTE] . Earlier also the petitioner had moved for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 23.9.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29326 of 2011 by this Court. It is contended that he has falsely been implicated in the case at the instance of the persons inimical to him. He is Mukhiya of the panchayat and had no role in withdrawal of money from the bank. The prosecution case is that co-accused Jagdish Yadav acted as a conduit of the petitioner who was Mukhiya of the panchayat. He took Rs. 5,000/- from the petitioner on the pretext of providing him Indira Awas under the scheme of the government. He was assured to be selected as a beneficiary under the scheme. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the accused persons after affixing photograph of someone else opened an account in the name of the petitioner and withdrew Rs. 24,000/- from the said account which had come in the account for the beneficiary under the 2 Indira Awas Scheme. When the petitioner went to inquire about the matter, the accused persons confined him in a room, assaulted him and threatened him of dire consequences. They also forcibly took his L.T.I. on blank papers. From the order impugned passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani, it appears that in course of investigation, the veracity of the allegation made in the F.I.R. has been found to be true. From paragraph 12 of the present application for anticipatory bail, it appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is accused in at least three more cases of similar nature. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is rejected. Sanjeet/ (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.