Tanmay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.35740 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -401 Year- 2014 Thana -MADHEPURA District- MADHEPURA ======================================================
1. Tanmay Kumar, aged about 42 years son of Late Ram Gulam Prasad Singh resident of Village- Sohijan, P.O.- Amma, P.S.- Katara, DistrictMuzaffarpur. at present posted as Asst. Anchal Office, Uda Kishunganj, District- Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjit Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-03-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Parmanandpur (Madhepura) P.S. case No. 401 of 2014 under Section 467, 468, 471,406, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Circle Officer, Ghailard, alleged that the District Magistrate has ordered for lodging case against the landlords, who received consideration amount for selling disputed lands, bearing Khata No. 2583, Khesra No. 7220, area 99 decimals of Mauza Bhatrangha, Thana No. 35.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR. The petitioner was Assistant in the circle office. The Circle Officer was also made accused later on in the case and Subhash Chandra Singh, the then Circle Officer, has already been enlarged on bail vide order passed in Cr. Misc.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35740 of 2016 (3) dt.08-03-2017 2/2 No. 4061 of 2015. No specific role is assigned to the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, during supervision, simply stated that petitioner being an Assistant has also made notes in the file for purchasing the disputed lands but the petitioner did not receive any money form the Government and all the landlords, who received consideration amount from the Government for selling disputed land, have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7564 of 2015 and in Cr. Misc. No. 2028 of 2015.
Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, is directed to be enlarged 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in Parmanandpur (Madhepura) P.S. Case No. 401 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T