Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.41375 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Mahendra Tiwary S/O Ram Bilas Tiwary, Resident of Village- Deorarh, Police Station- Chenari, District- Rohtas 2. Birendra Tiwary S/O Ram Bilas Tiwary, Resident of Village- Deorarh, Police Station- Chenari, District- Rohtas .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : M/s Ashok Kumar Mishra and Varun Kumar, Advocates. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. P.K.Jha, Addl. P. P. . ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA) 2 30-01-2012 Heard. This is a second attempt by the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail in a criminal prosecution, based on a complaint petition, in which cognizance has been taken under [STATUTE] . Recently by an order dated 15.10.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31385 of 2011 (Annexure-1), the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners was rejected by a speaking and reasoned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the aforesaid order dated 15.10.2011, co- accused Anil Kant Upadhyay and Mahendra Singh, who are said to be the Bank officials, have been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court by order dated 18.10.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31035 of 2011 (Annexure-6). After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the case of the petitioners cannot be equated with that of co-accused Anil Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41375 of 2011 (2) dt.30-01-2012 2 / 2 2 Kant Upadhyay and Mahendra Singh and, therefore, on that ground the petitioners cannot be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. However, the pleas that other co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail or regular bail, can always be taken before the learned court below for grant of regular bail. For the reasons recorded above and for the reasons recorded in previous order dated 15.10.2011(Annexure-1), the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners is rejected once again. However, if the petitioners surrender in connection with Complaint Case No. 1343 of 2010, pending in the court of Sri Prakash, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rohtas at Sasaram, within a period of three weeks from today and seek regular bail in the court below, then the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order, but by taking into consideration all the materials available on record including the order granting bail/ anticipatory bail to the co- accused persons. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 468

Statute Text:
Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery for the purpose of cheating. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.