ANTICIPATORY BAIL 3/16 on 13 August 1997

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a caseregistered for the offences punishable under Sections 319 (2),318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 3(5) of B.N.S.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatpetitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informantalleges that Jamabandi No.88 and 89 were created in the nameof his father and his Uncle with regard to the land in dispute andthe rent is being paid regularly. It is further alleged thatKapildeo Singh, Parwati Devi, Hemraj Singh (petitioner) andRam Swarup Singh in conspiracy got the name of Ram SwarupSah entered and got Jamabandi No.377K, 471, 399 and 552created with respect to the land in dispute in their name when Jamabandi No.88 and 89 are still intact. It is next alleged thatthe informant accordingly filed Cr.W.J.C. No.1149 of 2016before this Court and the Court found that Jamabandi No.88 and89 are still intact and directed the A.D.M., Khagaria to cancelthe Jamabandi created in the name of the accused persons andalso directed the State Authorities to institute an F.I.R. againstthe accused persons. It is further alleged that the A.D.M.,Khagaria cancelled the aforesaid Jamabandi in JamabandiCancellation Case No.3/16-17 and order cancelling Jamabandiwas affirmed by the Collector and Commissioner. Further, theS.H.O. Rajeev, thereafter called the informant where Dr. JaykantSingh s/o Ram Swarup Singh was present and threatened theinformant, accordingly informant informed the Superintendentof Police about the occurrence vide his letter dated 17.12.2024,further on 21.04.2025, Vipin along with 20-25 unknown accusedlooted his wheat crop and it is next alleged that the accusedpersons intend to grab his land, further earlier, Patel Singhhusband of Parwati Devi had looted the wheat crop.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatpetitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by theinformant. It is next submitted that from perusal of theallegations as alleged in the F.I.R. it would manifest that the informant alleges that this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No.1149 of 2016directed the A.D.M., Khagaria to cancel the Jamabandi createdin the name of the accused persons and directed the StateAuthorities to institute an F.I.R. against the accused persons forthe reason that Jamabandi no. 88 and 89 are still intact but thenit is submitted that from perusal of the order dated 16.05.2017passed in Cr. W.J.C. No.1149 of 2016, it would manifest thatCr.W.J.C. No.1149 of 2016 was disposed of observing that thecase was premature as Jamabandi cancellation case was pendingadjudication before the A.D.M., Khagaria and the StateAuthorities were directed to see whether F.I.R. can be lodged, ifcircumstances, justify, hence, it is submitted that the Writ Courtnever gave any positive direction for cancelling the Jamabandiand for instituting an F.I.R. It is further submitted that no doubtparties disputing, but then the land in dispute was purchased bythe petitioner by sale deed dated 13.08.1997 from Nawal Sah aswould manifest from Annexure-3 to the Supplementaryaffidavit. It is next submitted that thereafter Jamabandi No.399was created in favour of the petitioner and petitioner in the year2012 sold the said land by a registered sale deed dated16.11.2012 in favour of Ram Swarup Singh as would manifestfrom Annexure-3/1 to the supplementary affidavit. It is further

submitted that no doubt the Jamabandi created in the name ofthe petitioner and other accused persons have been cancelledand affirmed by the Commissioner but then petitioners areavailing their remedies available in law. It is also submitted thatmerely because Jamabandi stands cancelled that in itself doesnot give a cause of action to the informant for instituting anF.I.R., it is submitted that had the Authorities been of theopinion that fraud has been committed, in that event, the StateAuthorities would have instituted an F.I.R. It is next submittedthat petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in theinvestigation to prove his innocence.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer foranticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in theevent of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial courtwithin a period of six weeks from today, be released onanticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amounteach to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the caseis pending/successor court in connection with Choutham P.S.Case No. 100 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down pallavi/- UT

under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J)