Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.39695 of 2012 ====================================================== Rabindra Majhi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 18-10-2012 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] . After enquiry conducted by the BDO, it was found that the petitioner realized Rs.10000 each from four beneficiaries of Indira Awas Scheme. It is submitted that petitioner is neither Panchayat representative nor any sanctioning authority, hence, there is no question of making payment to the petitioner. Considering the thrust of accusation against the Panchayat Mukhia and the fact that beneficiaries have denied the accusation, this is a fit case for consideration of regular bail of the petitioner by the learned court below in case the petitioner surrenders within eight weeks from today in connection with Taraiyan P.S. Case no. 104 of 2012 pending in the court of learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39695 of 2012 (2) dt.18-10-2012 2/2 C.J.M., Saran. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation/direction. Let this order be transmitted through FAX at the cost of the petitioner. Anil/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, 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.