Ramesh Lal Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22195 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2024 Thana- PRATAPGANJ District- Supaul ====================================================== Ramesh Lal Das S/O Late Badri Lal Das Resident of Village- Pluwaha, Ward No. 03, P.S- Jadia, Distt.- Supaul (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Munmun Pandey D/o Padam Chand Pandey, R/o Akeenpada, Damodar Bhawan, Netaji Road, P.S. Jiyaganj, District- Murshidabad, West Bengal, at present R/0 Vill- Bhawanipur south, ward no. 7, P.S.- Pratapganj, DisttSupaul ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-08-2025 Despite of entered appearance through Vakalatnama, no one appears on behalf of the Informant.

2. Heard Mr. Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.

3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pratapganj P.S. Case No. 128 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 10.07.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420, 120B, 354, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and based on the complaint petition by the informant, the SDJM refer the matter to police under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the present F.I.R. was instituted.

2/6

4. The prosecution case as per the informant Munmun Panday is that her father Padam Chand Panday is 90 years old and has no son, so he used to leave with his daughter at Murshidabad, West Bengal. It is stated that the informant used to take care of the house and landed property belonging to her father situated at village-Jiyaganj, Pratapganj, Supaul. It is stated that 3 Kattha 9 Dhur land of Khesra 3933 under Khata 201 situated at Mauja Bhavanipur, Thana No. 151 is self acquired property of informants father, which is in his peaceful possession and is registered in his name in Jamabandi RegisterII in Jamabandi No. 673. The informant gave money to accused Bijay Panday for paying the rent from the year 2016-17 to the year 2021-22. The accused obtained the rent receipt, as required and gave it to the informant.

There after the accused Bijay Panday, with intention to grave informant's valuable land and house, in collusion with the accused Kali Charan Gothi, Niraj Kumar and the then Halka Karmchari Ramesh Lal Das & Rahul Kumar and also the then C.O.-Pratapganj Anshu Kumar and the computer operator Amit Kumar Singh committed forgery in the Register-II in Jamabandi No. 673 and interpolated the name of Damodar in place of Padam Chand and also interpolated the area 2 Kattha 6 Dhur in place of 3 Kattha 9 Dhur.

3/6 that then C.O. Anshu Kumar also forged and interpolated the above mentioned interpolation in the online records of the said land from his dongal and then after entering the forged online Jamabandi issued forged rent receipts in the name of Late Damodar Panday. When the informant came to know about the said forgery committed by the accused person, she asked the accused Bijay Panday about it but he started abusing and assaulting the informant in presence of the witnesses. Is stated that the accused Bijay Panday has earlier also committed offence against the informant for which Pratapganj P.S. case No. 218/23 is registered against him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per allegation, in the F.I.R., the accused persons including the petitioner altering the owner's name of Damodar Pandey and reducing the recorded area to 2 Katha 6 Dhur in the Register-II. In fact, the petitioner was Halka Karamchari and as per allegation in the F.I.R. the alleged occurrence had taken place between April 2023 and 09th May, 2023 and petitioner had given

4/6 the charge of the newly appointed Halka Karamchari namely Rahul Kumar on 21.02.2023 which suggests that on the date of occurrence the petitioner was not serving as a Halka Karmchari in Circle Office, Pratapganj and he has handed over all the records to said Rahul Kumar two months prior of the alleged offence as alleged in the F.I.R. In fact, the petitioner is a retired Government servant and is currently working on a contract basis and throughout his service, he has maintained an unblemished record and no complaints or allegations of misconduct have ever been made against him. In fact, the petitioner is not the beneficiary of the alleged occurrence and the beneficiary of the alleged occurrence is other co-accused persons namely Niraj Kumar, Bijay Pandey @ Bijoy Pandey and Kalicharan Gothi and they have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26324 of 2025 and Cr. Misc. No. 10296 of 2025.

6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and he has been transferred from the place of occurrence before the date of occurrence and he has handed over all the records to his

5/6 Successor namely Rahul Kumar on 21.02.2023 itself and similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his 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/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birpur in connection with Pratapganj P.S. Case No. 128 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with other following conditions :-

(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

6/6 any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T