Surendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Rajendra Keshari, aged about 46 years, S/o Late Harihar Saw, R/o Village Amber Khoiya, P.O., P.S.Dhurki, District-Garhwa.

¶11

..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate. : Mrs. Akriti Shree, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishtha, Spl.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate. ------

¶12

03/ 02.02.2026 Both these applications arise out of the same FIR, as such, both these applications are being heard together and disposed of with this common order.

¶13

Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant in respective cases.

¶14

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Dhurki P.S. Case No. 104 of 2023, registered for the offence under

¶15

-1-

¶16

[2026:JHHC:2609]

¶17

Sections 102-B, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Nagar Untari, Garhwa.

¶18

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 6034 of 2025 was posted as Revenue Sub-Inspector, Dhurki, Garhwa from 20.08.2018 and now he has been transferred to Hazaribagh. He next submits that the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 6035 of 2025, is working on the post of Circle Inspector, Dhurki, Garhwa. He then submits that the petitioners are not involved in the mutation of the land in question in favour of Surendra Prajapati, Manju Devi and Manmati Devi resepctively. He further submits that the mutation has been done in favour of three persons under the Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and particularly he refers to Sections 12 and 13 of the said Act. He also submits that three accused persons have moved before the DCLR in Transfer Appeal Case No. 52 of 2023, which was allowed by the order dated 02.01.2024, wherein the order passed by the Circle Officer has been set aside. He further submits that in view of setting aside of the said order, the land in question has already been restored in favour of the informant. He also submits that the Circle Officer has passed the order of mutation on 17.06.2023 and the appeal was preferred before the LRDC only after three days. He submits that it is well settled that only by way of mutation, the right, title and interest over the property will not be decided. On these grounds, he submits the anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioners.

¶19

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant jointly opposed the prayer and submit that in absence of any valid registered document, the mutation has been done in favour of three persons, only on the basis of reports of

¶20

-2-

¶21

[2026:JHHC:2609]

¶22

these two petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the State further submits that it has come in the case diary that in connivance of Registry office and staffs and by using the official stamp, prepared four forged registered documents after obtaining the signature of Registrar and opened the online jamabandi, whereas all the forged documents are in the name of four others. On these grounds, they jointly submit that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

¶23

Admittedly, the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 6034 of 2025 was posted as Revenue Sub-Inspector, Dhurki, Garhwa from 20.08.2018 and now he has been transferred to Hazaribagh and further the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 6035 of 2025, is working on the post of Circle Inspector, Dhurki, Garhwa and it has come in paras-94 and 95 of the case diary that in absence of any registered document, the mutation was done by the Circle Officer. It is also an admitted fact that the reports have been submitted by these two petitioners, on the basis of which, the mutation was done. Further it is very strange how three of the accused persons, in whose favour, the mutation was done, they have moved before the appellate authority for cancellation of the jamabandi, prima facie it suggests that these petitioners have instigated those persons to file appeal to save their skin. Further this practice is very rampant in the State of Jharkhand.

¶24

In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, named above. As such, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶25

Interim orders, granted earlier, in respective cases stand

¶26

vacated.

¶27

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶28

Dated:-02.02.2026 Amitesh/-

¶29

-3-

Surendra Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anant Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kuldip Saw Vs State of Jharkhand

Vikash Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Suraj Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Balaram Prasad Alias Balram Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand