IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellanious No.11223 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Umesh Pd. Gupta 2. Smt. Maya Gupta. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== 2 27.04.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a complaint case in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The accusation is that the complainant executed the power of attorney in favour of accused no. 6 and 7 who consequently, sold the property in favour of the petitioners after revocation of power of attorney. It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that the power of attorney was forged and the petitioners made an agreement to purchase the property from the complainant. It appears that initially, the complaint case was dismissed and subsequently, the dismissal order was carried to the revisional court and in pursuance to the revisional order, the cognizance has been taken in the matter. It is the case of the petitioners also that the land owner is the complainant but considering the civil nature of accusation this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners which will no way create any right to the petitioners as the dispute can only be decided by the competent civil court. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the above named petitioner, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in connection with Complaint Case No. 572C/2006, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Amrendra/- ( Dinesh Kumar Singh ,J)