1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3785 of 2015 Sidharth Shankar Choudhary @ Siddharth Shankar Choudhary ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ….. Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 640 of 2016 Amarkant Jha ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ….. Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 676 of 2016 Devendra Kumar ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ….. Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 739 of 2016 Manik Singh ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ….. Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 763 of 2016 Brahmdeo Prasad Keshri ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ….. Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 769 of 2016 Dilip Kumar Gupta ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ….. Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 837 of 2016 Deo Narayan Parihast ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ….. Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 1006 of 2016 Maheshwari Devi ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ….. Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (In A.B.A Nos. 3785/15, 676, 739,763 and 769 of 2016. Mr. Manoj Kr. Jha, Advocate (in A.B.A. No. 640 of 2016) Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate ( In A.B.A Nos. 837 & 1006 of 2016) For the C.B.I. : Mr. K.P. Deo, S.C. 2 16/Dated: 03rd October, 2016 Since all the anticipatory bail applications arise out of one and the same R.C. Case No. 15(A) of 2012D, hence they are taken up together and disposed of by common order. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 15(A) of 2012D for the offence registered under sections 120B read with sections 201, 423, 424, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending the Court of learned Special Judge, C.B.IcumA.D.JI, Dhanbad. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the basis of complaint dated 31.10.2011 of Raj Kumar Lakra, I/C Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi, Jharkhand, a case being F.I.R. No. 25 of 2011 was lodged at Vigilance Bureau Police Station, Ranchi for the offence punishable under sections 120B, 201, 109, 423, 424, 467, 468, 469, 471, 477A, 419, 420, 409 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, section 25 A of Santhal Pargana RegulationII, 1886 and Section 53 of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act and Government of Jharkhand Vide Notification No. 06/CBI713/2011/4523 dated 26.11.2011 under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, accorded consent for CBI Investigation of said Vigilance P.S. Case No. 25 of 211 and request the Government of India to issue necessary orders for C.B.I investigation, accordingly investigation of the aforesaid case was taken up by C.B.I. It is further alleged that the action relating to irregularities committed in sale/purchase of nontransferable lands in the district of Deoghar was initiated on the basis of a letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand on 18.08.2011 in which it has been mentioned that the alleged illegality had occurred due to forgery committed in the records maintained in the record room/office of SubRegistrar, Dumka and Deoghar 3 resulting in preparation of fake and forged sale certificate. In this case also, the land has been transferred on the basis of false and fake sale certificates. It is further alleged that the present case is related to dishonest and false sale/transfer/acquisition of nontransferable raiyat land (Raiyat, Jamabandi land, DhaniI, DhaniII, DhaniIII, BariI, Bari II, Bari III etc and in the process of above said illegal and unauthorized transfer of land, record of rights (Khatian) and other land related records were manipulated/created, substituted in records, obtained certified true copies, claimed ownership and obtained bogus favourable Bhu Satyapan Certificacte with connivance of Government Officials and nontransferable land/Government land were shown as transferable (Basauri) in those bogus records and they were sold to private persons. It is further alleged that during investigation, it has come on record that Government officials, private persons entered into criminal conspiracy among themselves during 20082011 with a view to cheat and defraud the Government of Jharkhand as wellas gullible purchaser and in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy the named accused public servants committed criminal misconduct by abusing their respective persons, enclosing false and fake land records such as fake sale certificate, khatian etc. On the basis of these allegations aforesaid case has been instituted. A.B.A. No. 3785 of 2015 It appears that C.B.I after investigation submitted final form against the petitioner stating therein that petitionerShri Sidharth Shankar Choudhary while working as Circle Officer, Deoghar entered into criminal during, 2008 to 2011 with a view to cheat & defraud the Government of Jharkhand and in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy dishonestly and fraudulently processed, recommended and furnished favourable Bhu Satyapan Report giving undue No Objection Certificate favouring the accused persons recommending for transfer/sale of non transferable Jamabandi Raityati/Govt land by way of unauthorizedly changing the name of land from nontransferable to transferable in number, name of Mauza etc and thereby facilitated coaccused private persons and their associates to sale/transfer plots of land in the name of dishonestly and fraudulently executed 4 and registered Sale Deeds disregarding the fact of nontransferable land, which were sold/made attempt thereof for sale and thereafter caused disappearance of evidence of offence such as aforesaid false and fake land records and hence caused huge wrongful loss. A.B.A. No. 676 of 2016 After investigation C.B.I has submitted final form against the petitioner stating therein that at the relevant time of occurrence, the petitioner was posted as Circle Officer, Deoghar and in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy with other co accused persons, dishonestly and fraudulently issued undue favourable Bhu Satyapan Report/ No Objection Certificate recommending for transfer/registration of nontransferable land of aggregate area of land of 5.5 acres of part of different plots of Thadhidulampur vide report No. 164/RA dated 29.12.2010, Report No. 1649/RA dated 30.12.2010, favouring coaccused and Reprot No. 11/RA dated 03.01.2011 favouring Shri Rajeev Kumar & others dishonestly and fraudulently recommending for transfer of 3915 sq ft of land of part of plot no. 143/156 of purported Jamabandi No. 6/1 of Mauza Madhusudan Chhorat resulting into further sale transfer or attempt thereof of above said land by coaccused persons, in gross violation of laid down provision of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act etc. He has also issued letter in reply to query raised by S.D.O, Deoghar that NOC furnished vide No. 1642 dated 29.12.2010 and 1649 dated 30.12.2010 were based on records and requested for countersigning the report. This petitioner willfully did not refer to list of basauri plots as prepared during 1993 by C.O Deoghar on order of D.C, Deoghar while furnishing above mentioned Bhu Satyapan Report/NOC. A.B.A. No. 739 of 2016 After investigation C.B.I has submitted final form stating therein that at the relevant time of occurrence, the petitioner was posted as Circle Inspector at Circle Office, Deoghar and other coaccused persons dishonestly and fraudulently processed and issued undue favourable Bhu Satayapan Report/No Objection Certificate while processing application of coaccused persons recommending for 5 transfer/registration of nontransferable land of aggregate area of land of 6400 sq. ft of part of plot of land 67, purposed Jamabandi No. 39/4 fo Mauza Karnibad vide Report No. 1287/RA dated 28.09.2010 favouring coaccused Shri Deb Narayan Parhihast of area of land of 50,000 sq. ft of part of plot of land 68, pruported Jamabandi No. 41 of Mauza Karnibad vide Reprot No. 709/RA dated 28.05.2010 favour coaccused Madheswari Devi and in gross violation of law laid down provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act/Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary) Act, 1949/Santhal Pargana Regulation etc resulting into further sale/transfer or attempt thereof above said land by coaccused persons, in gross violation of law laid down under provision of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act/Santhal Pargana Tenancy(Supplementary) Act, 1949/Santhal Pargana Regulation etc. It is further alleged that that the aforesaid dishonest and fraudulent acts of Shri Manik Singh and other subsequent acts of coaccused had resulted into illegal transfer/selling of nontranferable Jamabandi Raiyati/Govt land under Mauza Karnibad, Thadhidulampur, Madhusudan Chohorat & madarichak of Deoghar Circle, Deoghar and attempt thereof for undue pecuniary gain and thereby caused huge wrongful loss to Government of Jharkhand and corresponding wrongly gain to themselves. A.B.A. No. 763 of 2016 After investigation C.B.I has submitted final form stating therein that at the relevant time of occurrence, the petitioner was posted as Revenue karamchari, Circle Office, Deoghar. The petitioner willfully did not refer to list of basuri plots as prepared during 1993 by C.O, Deoghar in order of D.C. Deoghar which were also forwarded to DSR, Deoghar as reference for undertaking registration of sale deed and dishonestly and fraudulently prepared false and favourable raiyati/govt land. There are oral and documentary evidence to prove that Bhu Satyapan Report/NOC recommending for transfer/registration of questioned land of Mauza Thadidulampur etc vide Report No. 1642/Ra dated 29.12.2010 for transfer of 2.5 acre of land of Mauza Thadidulumpur of part of different plots by falsely showing nature of land as basauri and similarly issued report no. 1649/Ra dated 6 30.12.2010 favouring Shri Kapildeo Prasad Barnwal other others. A.B.A. No. 769 of 2016 It appears that C.B.I after investigation submitted final for against the petitioner stating therein that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Circle Inspector at Circle Office, Deoghar during the relevant period that is 01.03.2006 to 31.01.2009 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with other co accused persons, dishonestly and fraudulently issued undue favourable Bhu Satyapan Repor/No Objection Certificate recommending for transfer/registration of nontranferable land of aggregate area of land of 2 acrres of land of part of plot No. 68, Jamabandi No. 41 of Mauza Karnibad vide Report No. 1339/RA dated 01.07.2008 and Report No. 1491/RA dated 28.07.2008 both favouring coaccused Smt. Madheswari Devi resulting into further sale/transfer or attempt thereof above said land by coaccused persons in gross violation of law laid down and provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, etc. A.B.A. No. 640 of 2016 It appears that C.B.I after investigation submitted final form against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner is a private person and he with the help of his associates Shri Rajendra Kumar, Shri Kapildeo Prasad at the instance of Smt Devki Devi and others were engaged in sale of nontransferable land at Deoghar and found engaged in preparation and usages of forged and fake land records, dishonestly and fraudulently got favourable recommendation and sold nontransferable plots for undue pecuniary gain with the help of his other associates. He was one of the beneficiary of proceeds of fraudulent sale of non transferable Raiyati/Govt land. He has executed sale deed as Power of Attorney Holder/Vendor in favour of different buyers vide sale deed no. 1557 dated 17.06.2011, 1609 dated 22.06.2011. A.B.A. No. 837 of 2016 It appears that C.B.I after investigation submitted final form against the petitioner stating therein that petitioner is a private person and he with the help of his son Shri Dhrub Narayan Parhihast and others were engaged in sale of non 7 transferable land at Deoghar and found engaged in preparation and usage of forged and fake land records, dishonestly and fraudulently got favourable recommendation and sld nontransferable plots for undue pecuniary gain with the help of his son and other associates. He was one of the beneficiary of proceeds of fraudulent sale of nontransferable raiyati Govt land. A.B.A. No. 1006 of 2016 It appears that after investigation, C.B.I has submitted final form against the petitioner stating therein that she is a private person and with the help of her son Shri Dhrub Narayan Parhihast and others was engaged in sale of non transferable land at Deoghar and found engated in preparation and usage of forged and fake land records, dishonestly and fraudulently got favourable recommendation and sold nontransferable plots for undue pecuniary gain with the help of her son and other associates. She was one of the beneficiary of proceeds of fraudulent sale of nontransferable Raiyati/Govt land. She has executed sale deed as vendor in favour of different buyers vide Sale Deed No. 3232 to 3234 dated 26.11.2010, dated 27.03.2010, 1279 dated 19.05.2011 etc. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sidharth Shankar Choudhary @ Siddharth Shankar Choudhary in A.B.A. No. 3785 of 2016 on oral argument and notes of arguments has submitted that at the releant time the petitioner was Circle Officer at Deoghar and No Objection Certificates were issued by the petitioner on the basis of applications which were accompanied by certified copies of sale certificate. The certified copies of the sale certificates admittedly were issued by Dumka SubRegistry Officer. This fact has been noted by the CBI in their charge sheet at internal page 51, para 6 of the chargesheet. It is further submitted that once an application was made along with certified copies, the petitioner being Circle Officer, had no means to verify whether a certified copy of sale certificate was false and fake. In law there is a presumption of genuineness of certified copies. It is further submitted that the application field by the applicant for grant of No Objection Certificate was accompanied by the aforesaid certified Copy, which was verified by Halka 8 Karamchari and also endorsed by the Circle Inspector and only thereafter the petitioner had issued the No Objection Certificate. It is further submitted that reference of 1993 list was completely done away and after issuance of the order dated 14.01.2004, as modified by order dated 31.01.2008 there was no practice or order that for issuance of NOC reference has to be made to the list prepared in the Year 1993. Considering if 1993 list was though to be complete in all respect then thee was no necessity for issuing executive orders dated 14.01.2004. It is further submitted that considering the aforesaid facts Ram Kumar Madhesia and Bhogendra Thakur, who were District Sub Registrars has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No. 2433 and 2405 of 2015 respectively. So the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Devendra Kumar in A.B.A. No. 676 of 2016 on oral argument and notes of arguments has submitted that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Circle Officer, Deoghar. It is further submitted that Sale Certificate No. 26 of 1938, which was issued on the basis of ownership, has been found to be false and forge. In fact, the forged sale certificate was found in original sale register of the year, 1938 and records were maintained at the office of District SubRegistrar, Dumka. Rent receipts were also issued in respect of the land, in question by the erstwhile Halka KarmchariLate Mani Bhushan Prasad. Records of L.A. Case No. 90 of 1945 46 was found to be forged by an internal audit team during enquiry in the month of AprilMay, 2011. The NOC's were granted on 03.01.2011 i.e before the said enquiry. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed any wrong particularly in the light of the fact that he had no means to find out the genuineness of the records. Moreover, in the instant case, no sale/transaction has taken place on the basis of NOC in question. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Manik Singh in A.B.A. No. 739 of 2016 on oral argument and notes of arguments has submitted that at the relevant time was posted as Circle Inspector of Deoghar Circle. It is further submitted that the land pertaining to plot nos. 301, 761, 763 9 and 304 of Mouja Thadhidulampur is said to be Gochar alnd in the chargesheet, from the documents produced by the C.B.I in course of hearing, it would be apparent that the said land is parti Kadim land. As per Clause 3 of the record of rights, the proprietor had settled the same with Bhanu Devi. In R.M.A. Cae No. 391 of 195253, the SubDivisional Officer had confirmed the possession as basauri land and rent was fixed. Cerfified copy of R.M.A. Case No. 391 of 195253 was also issued by the Record Room, Dumka. The application field by the applicant for grant of No. Objection Certificate was accompanied by the aforesaid cerfified copy. Which was verified by Halka Karamchari. It is further submitted that RegisterII is still running in the name of aforesaid tenant, which means that the entry is presumed to be correct. There is no allegation that the petitioner has received any illegal gratification or had ever met any of the accused persons. It is further submitted that land is said to have been acquired by Smt. Devki Devi in L.A. Case No. 23 of 194445. The records relating to L.A. Case No. 23 of 194445 have been “prma facie found to be false”. The said finding, therefore cannot be said to be conclusive, despite the investigation of more than two years. It is further submitted that application was made along with copy of false and fake L.A. Case No. 23 of 194445, RegisterI and also an affidavit of the application. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Dilip Kumar Gupta in A.B.A. No. 769 of 2016 on oral argument and notes of arguments has submitted that at the relevant time the petitioner was posted as Circle Inspector, Deoghar Circle Deoghar and allegation against the petitioner is for issuance of three No Objection Certificate in respect of land, measuring 2 acres, 50000 sq. ft., pertaining to plot no. 68, jamabandi no. 41, mauja karnibad. The said land is said to be Gochar land in the chargesheet. However, from the documents produced by the C.B.I in course of hearing, it would be apparent that the said land is parti Kadim land. As per Clause 3 of the Record of Rights, the properietor had settled the same with Bhanu Devi. In R.M.A Casae No. 391 of 195253, the SubDivisional Officer had confirmed the possession as Basauri land and rent was fixed. Certified copy of the same was issued by the 10 Record Room, Dumka. The application filed by the applicant for grant of No Objection Certificate was accompanied by the aforesaid certified copy. It is further submitted that RegisterII is still running in the name of aforresaid tenant, which means that the entry is correct. In this case also, there is no allegation that the petitioner has received any illegal gratification or had ever met any of the accused persons. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Brahmdeo Prasad Keshri in A.B.A. No. 763 of 2016 on oral argument and notes of arguments has submitted at the relevant time the petitioner was working as karamchari, Deoghar Circle, Deoghar and there is allegation against the petitioner for issuance of No Objection Certificates in respect of sale/transfer of 9.12 acres of land, pertaining to plot nos. 301, 761, 763 and 304 of Mauja Thadhidulampur and alleged illegal acquisition of 3915 sq. ft. of land vide L.A. Case No. 194546 and, thereafter, sale/transfer of nontransferable land of an area 3.27 acres of land in Dag No. 143/156, Jamabandi No. 6 of Mauja Madhusudan Chhorat, P.S. No. 255 under Deoghar Circle. As per related Survey Khatiyan, the above mentioned transferred/sold land are in the nature of Partikadim. It is further submitted that Rent Receipts were also issued in respect of the land in question by the erstwhile Halka Karamcharilate Mani Bhushan Prasad. The application was made along with copy of false and fake L.A. Case No. 23 of 194445, RegisterI and also an affidavit of the applicant. It is on the aforesaid basis files were recommended. It is further submitted that Records of L.A. Case No. 90 of 194546 was found to be forged by an internal audit team during enquiry in the month of AprilMay, 2011. The NOC's were granted on 03.01.2011 before the said enquiry. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed any wrong, particularly in the light of the fact that he had no means to find out the genuineness of the records. Moreover, in the instant case, no sale/transaction has taken place on the basis of NOC in question. In the aforesaid charge, the allegation of impersonation has also been made, but the said allegation is not against the present petitioner. It is further submitted that during investigation the petitioners cooperated 11 in the investigation and whenever the Investigating Officer asked to appear the petitioners, they appeared before the I.O and they were never arrested by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that investigation in this case is complete and final form has been submitted and cognizance has been taken and Trial will take some time. It is further submitted that petitioners have been dismissed from the service. Considering all these facts, the petitioners deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 640 of 2016 has submitted that petitioner is nowhere concern with the alleged occurrence but unfortunately he has been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is not named in F.I.R and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner to participate in the alleged occurrence. The I.O has submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and other accused persons. It is further submitted that Devki Devi has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No. 3945 of 2015 and apart from above mentioned order, several other similarly situated accused persons have also been admitted on anticipatory bail by different orders, so the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail. Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerDeo Narayan Parihast in A.B.A. No. 837 of 2016 has submitted that there are two fold allegation which relate to the Sale Certificate No. 33SC/1937 and Sale Certificate No. 30C/1937, which is being alleged to be forged and fabricated but the land in question is not a Basauri plot as there is only one basauri plot that is plot no. 9/1 against jamabandi no. 39/3 which belonged to Lallu Mirdha being aggregate area of 04 decimals. As per index no. 1, register of 1937, the judgment debtor is not Ramu Mirdha but it was Hari Sah and another. As per index no. II about 01 katha of basauri land together with pacca house in ward no. 1 and holding no. 679 of Deoghar were transferred vide sale certificate no. 33 of 1937 and it does not relates to 40.08 acres of basauri land of mauza karnibad of jamabandi no. 39/4. It is further submitted that the age of the petitioenr in the year 1937 was found to be 10 years. A mortgage suit no. 571 of 12 1935 was initiated before the court of deputy collector, IIIrd Court of Deoghar which resulted to the mortgage execution no. 189 of 1936 between the decree holder Triveni Lal Modi and the judgment debtor Ramu Mirdha. It is submitted that a public auction was held on 30th August, 1937 with respect to jamabandi no. 39/4, plot no.s 66, 67, 70, 71, 156, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164 and 299 and a certificate of sale of the land was issued from the court of the Deputy Collector, III Court at Deoghar on 25th October, 1937 in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the year, 1937, another land of Mouza Bandha, P.S. Kunda, District Deoghar of Jamabandi No. 42 having an area 5.80 acres was settled by way of Kurfa in favour of the petitiioner on 10.04.1937 by Baju Sah and his three brothers for a consideration of Rs. 501 only. The suit filed by the petitioner being Title (D) Suit No. 89 of 1994 was decreed vide judgment dated 24.01.98, which was challenged in Title Appeal No. 5 of 1998 and second Appeal and the same has been decided in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that from the aforesaid judgment, it will be evident that the transfer of land made in the year, 1937 in favour of the petitioner has been declared genuine and valid in favour of the petitioner by the competent Civil Court, so the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail. Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerMaheshwari Devi in A.B.A. No. 1006 of 2016 has submitted that it is mentioned at page 46 of the chargesheet that she with assistance of accused no. 8 sold two acres (50,000 sq. ft) out of plot no. 68 herein jamabandi no. 41 of village karnibad after obtaining NOC. It is further submitted that the aforesaid land of plot no. 68 jamabandi no. 41 of mouza karnibad was originally belonged to Bhanu Devi, the mother of the petitioner and the said land was settled in favour of the mother of the petitioner by the exlandlord Babu Devendranath Chatopadhyay having an area of 21.23 acres vide registered deed no. 342 in the year, 1948. It is furlther submitted that Bhanu Devi, the mother of the petitioner made an application for mutation of the aforesaid land before the subdivisional officer, Deoghar, which was registered as Rev. Misc. Case No. 391 of 195253 and 13 the S.D.O Deoghar passed the order dated 30.03.1953,copy has been annexed as annexure 4 to this application. It is further submitted that by order dated 11.06.1953 the possession was delivered to Banu Devi, the mother of the petitioner by the order of the SDO and by order dated 24.08.1953, the delivery of possession was confirmed with respect to Patta No. 342/1948 with respect to 21.23 acres of land in plot no. 68, jamabandi no. 41 of Mauza Karnibad as Basauri land, photocopy of entire ordersheet has been annexed. It is further submitted that after the death of Banu Devi, there was a family partition between the only son and the daughters of Bhanu Devi and it was got registered on 09.10.2007 and the land in question was given to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitiioner is being prosecuted on a priori assumption. It is unfunded supposition that the land is nontransferable (contra the Khatiyan of 1935 which is yet final) and that the present land is relatable to the sale certificate 30/37 and 33/37) the basic premises being non est the inferences drawn in the chargesheet suffers from the vice of “ petiteo Principil”. So, the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that during investigation the petitioners cooperated in the investigation and whenever the Investigating Officer asked to appear the petitioners, they appeared before the I.O and they were never arrested by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that investigation in this case is complete and final form has been submitted and cognizance has been taken and Trial will take some time. On the other hand, Mr. K. P. Deo, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I has submitted that all the bail applications can be divided into two parts. In A.B.A. Nos. 3785/15, 676, 739, 763 and 769 of 2016 the petitioners are government servant i.e Circle Officer, Circle Inspector and Karamchari and in A.B.A. Nos. 640, 837 and 1006 of 2016 the petitioners are private person. The petitioners who are government servants after making criminal conspiracy violated the provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act/Santhal Pargana Tenancy(Supplementary) Act, 1949/Santhal Pargana Regulation etc and committed several omissions which were found to be true during course of investigation by the C.B.I which has been 14 mentioned in the chargesheet and thus these petitioners committed offence under sections 120B read with sections 201, 423, 424, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly cognizance has been taken., so these petitioners do not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned standing counsel for the C.B.I has submitted that petitioners who are private persons in A.B.A. Nos.640, 837 and 1006 of 2016 were engaged in preparation and usage of forged and fake land record, dishonestly and fraudulent got favourable recommendation with the held of government servants and sold nontransferable plots for undue pecuniary gain. So, the petitioners do not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the C.B.I and after going through the entire records, submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, from perusal of entire documents, I am of the considered view that petitioners in A.B.A Nos. 3785 of 2015 and A.B.A. No. 676 of 2016 at the relevant time were circle officers and they were responsible for discharging their duty as a public servant and they shifted their blame to other persons and on the basis of recommendations they have passed orders even No Objection Certificate, Bhu Satyapan Report for transfer of land and violated the provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, which has been found true by the C.B.I in the investigation, and similarly, petitioner in A.B.A. No.837 of 2016 though is a private person but allegation against him is very serious as he was engage in preparation and usage of forged and fake land records and fraudulently got favourable recommendation and sold transferable plots. considering all these facts, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitionerSidharth Shankar Choudhary @ Siddharth Shankar Choudhary(A.B.A. No. 3785 of 2015), petitioner Devendra Kumar (A.B.A. No.676 of 2016) and petitioner Deo Narayan Parihast (A.B.A. No. 837 of 2016). Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Petitioners may surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail, if so, advised. 15 So far as prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitionerAmarkant Jha (A.B.A. No.640 of 2016), petitionerManik Singh (A.B.A. No. 739 of 2016), petitioner Brahmdeo Prasad Keshri (A.B.A. No.763 of 2016), petitionerDilip Kumar Gupta (A.B.A. No. 769 of 2016) and petitioner Maheshwari Devi (A.B.A. No. 1006 of 2016) are concerned, petitioner Amarkant Jha is a private person, petitioners Marnik Singh and Dilip Kumar Gupta were circle inspector, petitioner Brahmdeo Prasad Keshri was Karmamchari and petitioner Maheshwari Devi is a lady and private person, investigation against them are complete, final form has been submitted in this case, cognizance has already been taken, trial will take some time, during investigation these petitioners cooperated in the investigation, I am inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, petitioners namely, Amarkant Jha, Manik Singh, Brahmdeo Prasad Keshri, Dilip Kumar Gupta and Maheshwari Devi are directed to surrender in the Court below within three weeks from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioners on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees twenty five thousand)each, with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction learned Special Judge, C.B.IcumA.D.JI, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 15(A) of 2012D, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and also subject to condition that one of the bailors shall be Government servant. Petitioners shall fully cooperate with the CBI and also appear physically before the court below as and when directed. If they want exemption from appearance, they will inform the CBI in advance and after taking necessary permission from Trial Court, they may be exempted from personal appearance. The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses during trial. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned standing counsel for the C.B.I and also be sent to the Trial Court through FAX at once. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/