IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA 1. Cr.Misc. No.8452 of 2010 PRAKASH KUMAR SINGH,son of Devanand Singh,resident of Mohalla-Marufganj,Ward No.-20,P.S.+District-Saharsa.. Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .. .. Opp.Party With 2. Cr.Misc.No.11975 of 2010 MD. KASHIM, son of Md. Mazid,resident of Ward No.-12,Ali Nagar,Saharsa, P.S.+ District-Saharsa. .. Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .. .. Opp.Party With 3. Cr.Misc.No.14045 of 2010 Manoj Kumar Swarnkar,son of Late Sahdeo Swarnkar,resident of Ward No.10(West of Purani Jail),P.S. & District-Saharsa. .. .. .. Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .. Opp.Party ----------- For the Petitioners:M/s Pramod Mishra & Satish Kr.Singh, Advocates For the State :Mr. Ajay Kumar-2, Addl.P.P. ------------- 02/ 19-04-2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners of all three cases as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S.Case No.644 of 2009 dated 18-12-2009, registered under Sections 420, 120B and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution case, one Power of Attorney was prepared in the name of co-accused-Prashant Chatterjee by setting up another lady in place of the informant/complainant- 2 Mostt. Sahni Devi (Kaur). Aforesaid Prashant Chatterjee transferred certain lands belonging to the informant on the basis of the aforesaid forged Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner (in Cr.Misc.No.14045/10) Manoj Kumar Swarnkar. Petitioner (in Cr.Misc.No.8452/10) Prakash Kumar Singh and petitioner (in Cr.Misc.No.11975/10) Md. Kashim are the witness and identifier in the aforesaid sale deeds executed by co-accused-Prashant Chatterjee, in favour of petitioner-Manoj Kumar Swarnkar. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Prakash Kumar Singh, and petitioner-Md. Kashim, that they have acted bonafide and they are not beneficiaries from the aforesaid transactions. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Manoj Kumar Swarnkar also submits that his action was also bonafide and he had purchased the lands in question from the aforesaid Power of Attorney holder, believing the same to be genuine. Learned counsel for the State has strongly controverted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and has pointed out that so far petitioner-Manoj Kumar Swarnkar and co-accused-Prashant Chatterjee are concerned, they are apparently beneficiaries from the aforesaid transactions. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner-Prakash Kumar Singh, being witness of the sale deed in question and petitioner-Md. Kashim, being identifier of the sale deed in question, in the event of arrest/surrender within a 3 period of four weeks from today in the above noted case, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, subject to the conditions as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, so far petitioner-Manoj kumar Swarnkar is concerned; he appears to be beneficiary from the aforesaid transactions and, therefore, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. He must surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised. If such a petition is filed, the same may be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. AH/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)