Lalit Prasad @ Lalit Prasad Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56160 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-400 Year-2021 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - BARH DistrictPatna ====================================================== LALIT PRASAD @ LALIT PRASAD RAY S/o- Late Kailash Prasad Ray @ Late Kalish Prasad Ray At Revenue Officer Mokama Anchal Ps- Mokama Dist- Patna Village- Sri Nagar Ps- Masaurhi Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Rajesh Kumar S/o- Late Ram Chandra Prasad Singh Village- Chintamani Chak Ps- Mokama Dist- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bhim Sen Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint case punishable for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 467, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a piece of land in Mauja Chintamani Chak and got it, mutated in his name. Later on, all accused persons in connivance with officials of Mokama Circle Office, got the rent receipt issued of the same land on their name. The officials of Circle office Mokama had issued rent receipts to the accused persons in violation of the directions of higher officials.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56160 of 2025(2) dt.25-08-2025 2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that petitioner was posted as 'Revenue Officer' under the Circle Office, Mokama and he, being employee in the Circle Office, was duty-bound to follow the order of Circle Officer and accordingly, after getting the mutation order, he issued rent receipts. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in this connection, complainant has also filed a title suit, vide T.S. No. 108 of 2011, against Sarswati Devi and other coaccused persons for cancellation of sale-deed and after 10 years of filing of said title suit, the present complaint petition has been filed. Similarly situated co-accused Ganauri Paswan, who was posted as Revenue Karamchari, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 19-08-2025 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 49233 of 2025. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the event of arrest/surrender before the Court below within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56160 of 2025(2) dt.25-08-2025 3/3 thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barh, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 400 of 2021, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. /Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T