Prins Raj @ Prince Raj v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11560 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-310 Year-2025 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== Prins Raj @ Prince Raj S/o- Raghunandan Sahu @ Raghunandan Sah Resident of Village- Jhitki, PS- Hisar, District-Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Raju Patel For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 310 of 2025, F.I.R dated 17.06.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338 and 336(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, the FIR is based on a typed complaint submitted by the informant, Anand Kumar Mandal, Circle Officer, Supaul. It is alleged that, as per directions of the Additional Collector and findings of a threemember inquiry committee, the accused Prince Raj, then Circle Officer, Supaul, had illegally ordered mutation (Dakhil-Kharij) of several Gairmazrua Aam/Khas lands in violation of
2/4 prescribed rules. The inquiry report found the allegations proved. Consequently, the District Magistrate, Supaul, directed lodging of an FIR against the accused for such acts committed during his tenure, leading to institution of the present case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of three member committee report, the instant case is said to have been registered while the petitioner being the Circle Officer was never called in question and no hearing was given before recording the finding against this petitioner. It is next submitted that on the basis of report placed for mutating the land in question by the Revenue Karamchari, further follow up actions with regard to mutation is said to have been carried out by this petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has already been dismissed from service, which is to be challenged by filing appropriate application. It is further submitted that there is no chance of tampering with the evidence and as also to influence the witnesses.
Lastly, it is submitted that petitioner will co-operate with the investigation and such mutation, which is said to have been done by the petitioner as per the allegation has already been cancelled by appropriate authority.
3/4 series.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that petitioner has already dismissed from service and the mutation, which have also been affected by this petitioner has also been cancelled. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court of CJM, Supaul in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 310 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
4/4 date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) abhishekkr/- U T