IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3492 of 2010 LAL BABU YADAV @ LAL BABU SINGH,son of Late Yamuna Yadav,resident of village-Deo, P.S.- Karakat,District-Rohtas. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03/ 08-04-2010 Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastry, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Karakat P.S.Case No.182/2009 dated 26-08-2009, registered under Sections 420 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution case one Dhanwarti Devi, wife of Lal Babu Paswan of village-Osaw in the district of Rohtas was granted the benefits under Indira Aawas scheme. The petitioner being Up-Mukhiya is alleged to have forcibly taken rupees seven thousand from the aforesaid beneficiary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not the Up-Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat in question and the prosecution case is the result of manipulation of Block Development Officer, Karakat, who is the informant of the present case. However, he has fairly conceded that without going into the merit of the case, his client is prepared to return rupees seven thousand to the aforesaid beneficiary provided it is not construed about the admission of his guilt. Learned counsel for the State has also fairly stated that if the petitioner returns the aforesaid amount, then his prayer may be favourably considered. 2 In the aforesaid background, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today in the above noted case, the above named petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas, subject to the conditions as laid down under sub- section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall deposit rupees seven thousand in cash in the court below within the same period, which may be returned to the aforesaid beneficiary on proper verification and identification by the court below. It goes without saying that the payment of the money shall not be construed as admission of the guilt by the petitioner during the course of trial. AH/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)