Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.39300 of 2011 ====================================================== Md. Mukhshaid @ Md. Mukshaid Alam, son of Haji Mukhtar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.40849 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Ram Charan Singh, son of Late Sukhdeo Singh 2. Kapildeo Prasad Yadav, son of Late Neeras Yadav 3. Shanti Devi @ Sati Devi, wife of Shiv Kishore Paswan 4. Ramawati Devi, wife of Ram Parikshan Singh 5. Sumitra Devi, wife of Chandeshwar Sah .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.42677 of 2011 ====================================================== Ram Sikil Devi, wife of Bipin Mishra .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.42748 of 2011 ====================================================== Bhuneshwar Shah, son of Dork Shah .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.42806 of 2011 ====================================================== Arun Rai, son of Kari Rai .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== With Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39300 of 2011 (3) dt.06-03-2012 2 / 3 2 Criminal Miscellaneous No.43349 of 2011 ====================================================== Shail Devi, sife of Niranjan Ram .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.43450 of 2011 ====================================================== Sushila Devi, wife of Upendra Singh .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL ORDER 3 06-03-2012 This application has been heard together and being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with a case registered for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] read with Section 63, 65, 68 of Copy Right Act. Submission is that petitioners name emerged during investigation and under almost similarly situated circumstances other co-accused have already been granted privilege by composite order of this court vide order dated 23.12.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 41003/2011, 41353/2011, 41381/2011, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39300 of 2011 (3) dt.06-03-2012 3 / 3 3 43492/2011 based on earlier order dated 11.11.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 36016/2011 & 36092 both of 2011. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of their arrest/surrender before the court below within four weeks, let the above named petitioners be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 595/2010, subject to condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with additional condition to remain physically present before the court below on each and every date till disposal of the case, in case of failure on two consecutive dates without giving any reasonable explanation, the liberty granted shall be deemed to be cancelled. Rajeev/- (Akhilesh Chandra, 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.