Sudhir Kumar Upadhayay v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32707 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -402 Year- 2017 Thana -ISLAMPUR District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================

1. SUDHIR KUMAR UPADHAYAY (Revenue Clerk), s/o late Ram Hari Upadhayay, r/o village-Chhoti Milki, P.S.-Rajgir, District-Nalanda presently working as Revenue Clerk, Circle Office, Karaiparsurai in the District of Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Renuka Ratnakar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 3/ 11-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Islampur P.S. Case No.402 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 471, 419, 420 Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalada. First Information Report has been lodged by the Circle Officer making allegation that petitioner being In-charge Revenue Karamchari had got issued fake LPC on the basis of fake revenue receipt and got the compensation paid to wrong person. It is alleged that petitioner issued fake receipt of three decimals of land in place of two decimals of plot No.1325, Khata

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32707 of 2018 (3) dt.11-07-2018 2/2 No.346 on the basis of which compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- was given to one Arun Kumar. During enquiry, it came to notice that the said Arun Kumar did not belong to genealogy of Khatiyari Raiyat Tetar Hazam in whose favour said land stands in the record.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge has mentioned in the impugned order that Register II was called for from Anchal Office, which shows Plot No.1325 was having an area of two decimal and not three decimals, which supports the allegation against the petitioner levelled in the written report. In such circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

Petitioner may surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed off in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) JA/- U T