Patna High Court
Prins Raj @ Prince RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
Prince Raj, a former Circle Officer, was implicated in an FIR (Supaul PS Case No.310 of 2025) for allegedly ordering illegal mutation of government lands, offences alleged under Sections 318(4), 338 and 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution’s case rested on a typed complaint by an informant and a three‑member inquiry committee report that found the allegations proved. The petitioner argued that he was never given a hearing, had already been dismissed from service, and that the mutation orders he allegedly effected had been cancelled, so there was no risk of evidence tampering. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. Considering the petitioner’s dismissal, cancellation of the mutation, and lack of any indication of tampering, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The bail order required a bond, sureties, appearance before the trial court, and prohibitions against witness tampering or committing further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior dismissal and cancellation of the mutation orders negate the risk of evidence tampering or influence on witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land mutation
- illegal order
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- procedural fairness
- civil service dismissal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11560 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-310 Year-2025 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul
======================================================
Prins Raj @ Prince Raj S/o- Raghunandan Sahu @ Raghunandan Sah
Resident of Village- Jhitki, PS- Hisar, District-Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raju Patel
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 310 of 2025, F.I.R dated
17.06.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 318(4), 338 and 336(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. According to prosecution case, the FIR is based on
a typed complaint submitted by the informant, Anand Kumar
Mandal, Circle Officer, Supaul. It is alleged that, as per
directions of the Additional Collector and findings of a three-
member inquiry committee, the accused Prince Raj, then Circle
Officer, Supaul, had illegally ordered mutation (Dakhil-Kharij)
of several Gairmazrua Aam/Khas lands in violation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11560 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
prescribed rules. The inquiry report found the allegations
proved. Consequently, the District Magistrate, Supaul, directed
lodging of an FIR against the accused for such acts committed
during his tenure, leading to institution of the present case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on
the basis of three member committee report, the instant case is
said to have been registered while the petitioner being the Circle
Officer was never called in question and no hearing was given
before recording the finding against this petitioner. It is next
submitted that on the basis of report placed for mutating the
land in question by the Revenue Karamchari, further follow up
actions with regard to mutation is said to have been carried out
by this petitioner. It has further been submitted that the
petitioner has already been dismissed from service, which is to
be challenged by filing appropriate application. It is further
submitted that there is no chance of tampering with the evidence
and as also to influence the witnesses. Lastly, it is submitted that
petitioner will co-operate with the investigation and such
mutation, which is said to have been done by the petitioner as
per the allegation has already been cancelled by appropriate
authority. The respective cancellation orders have been
appended with the anticipatory bail petition as Annexure-P/4
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11560 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
series.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that petitioner has already dismissed from service and the
mutation, which have also been affected by this petitioner has
also been cancelled. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant
the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released 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 court of CJM, Supaul in connection
with Supaul P.S. Case No. 310 of 2025, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11560 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
abhishekkr/-
U T
Checking your session…