IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17315 of 2011 HARENDRA SINGH @ HARENDRA KUMAR son of Late Sunderdeo Singh, resident of Mohalla- Dhobi ghatna, P.O. Anaitha, P.S. Arrah (Nawada), District- Bhojhpur (Arrah), Bihar. … Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …… Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 13.06.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is an accused for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 34 of the Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per First Information Report the petitioner produced a forged cheque of Rs. 80,000/- (eighty thousand) but the amount debited from the account of the Account Holder was only Rs.8,000/- (eight thousand), hence it is alleged that petitioner withdrew excess amount up to Rs. 72,000/- (seventy two thousand) and when the bank officials contacted the account holder they also admitted that Rs. 72,000/- (seventy two thousand) had been wrongly withdrawn. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further 2 submits that the cheque issued by the account holder in favour of the petitioner dated 16.07.2010 (Annexure-2) clearly shows that Rs. 80,000/- (eighty thousand) was given to the petitioner by the account holder. They also state that the official of the bank without looking into the account of the account holder paid the said amount of cheque to the petitioner but when subsequently at the time of making entries found that the account holder had only Rs. 10,000/- odd in his account, they wrongly mentioned Rs. 8,000/- as debited from his account and subsequently contacted the account holder. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the account holder had not filed any case that any forgery has been committed in the cheque granted by him specially because the petitioner who is a cloth vendor had been given the cheque of Rs. 80,000/- (eighty thousand) in lieu of the articles purchased from it. Hence, he submits that there is no fault at all of the petitioner rather the fault is either with the authorities of the bank or with the account holder and the petitioner had been wrongly roped in due to their mistake, whereas the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and 3 circumstances, this petition for anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of arrest or surrender of the petitioner, namely, Harendra Singh @ Harendra Kumar, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in the court below, they shall be admitted to bail on executing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Ara (Nawada) P.S. Case No. 309 of 2010 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ibrar/ ( S.N. Hussain, J.)