Patna High Court
Lekhadhari SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, finding that only suspicion exists against them and no substantive evidence of their participation or benefit.
Summary
The High Court of Patna considered applications for anticipatory bail filed by two government officers—Manjesh Kumar, a Circle Officer, and Lekhadhari Singh, a Revenue Clerk—who were named in FIR No. 1094 of 2024 for alleged forgery and related offences concerning land records. The petitioners argued that the alleged forgery took place in 1995, long before they joined the revenue office, and that they were not beneficiaries of the transaction, contending that the FIR was a civil dispute weaponized against them without proper sanction. The State opposed the bail, asserting that as heads of the revenue office the petitioners were complicit in the alleged forgery. The court examined the prima facie evidence and noted that only suspicion existed against the petitioners, with no concrete proof of their involvement or benefit. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to both petitioners, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners despite their alleged involvement in forgery of land records.
- Whether the petitioners, as heads of the revenue office, can be held liable for the alleged offences.
- Whether the FIR constitutes a legitimate criminal proceeding or is a civil dispute used to exert pressure.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- forgery
- land registration
- revenue officer
- dereliction of duty
- civil dispute
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31791 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1094 Year-2024 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
Manjesh Kumar @ Anchaladhikari Manjesh Kumar S/o Ajay Kumar Azad
R/o House No.22 Road No.1, Near Tilak Nagar Rukanpura, Ps- Rukanpura,
Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23228 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1094 Year-2024 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
Lekhadhari Singh Son of Late Rasmani Singh R/o Village and P.O.- Khajuri,
P.S.- Naubatpur, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31791 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Thakur, Adv
: Mr. Gyan Abhinav, Adv
: Mr. Atul Anand, Adv
: Mr. Krishna Priya, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Anshul, Sr.Adv
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23228 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sujeet Kumar Gupta, Adv
: Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Adv
: Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kr. Singh No. 1, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Anshul, Sr.Adv
: Mr. Krishna Priya, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
12 12-01-2026 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31791 of
2025
Heard the parties.
2. The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No.
1094 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 316(2), 318(2), 316(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31791 of 2025(12) dt.12-01-2026
2/7
of the BNS.
3. As per FIR, informant and his agnates have land
property in Khedarpura, Bihta, Patna and they are in possession of
this property for last 100 years. In June 2023, Tribhuvan Rai,
Biteshwar Rai, Sudeshwar Rai, Aditya Rai, Lekhadhari Singh-
Revenue Clerk and this petitioner-Circle Officer committed forgery
in jamabandi register and made entries of informant’s land in the
name of Mahendra Gope through jamabandi no. 53. Rushu Singh a
retired employee posted at Bihta Anchal on contact Ranjit Rai, who
is a resident of Lekhadhari Singh’s village and Fittan Rai of
Khedarpura Village are also involved in the alleged occurrence. It
is also alleged that on the direction of Hon’ble High Court co-
accused Lekhadhari Singh was dismissed from the service and
Form-A was issued against this petitioner-Circle Officer. Further
allegation is that accused persons Tribhuvan Rai and his sons along
with Fittan Rai have ousted the laborers from the field of the
informant, on the basis of aforesaid FIR in issue was lodged.
4. Mr. Ajay Thakur, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submitted that aforesaid modifications of
entries was done in the year 1995 and at that time Manjesh
Kumar-Circle Officer was not posted there, as he joined the office
in year 2023, only. It is submitted that being head of the Revenue
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31791 of 2025(12) dt.12-01-2026
3/7
Office he was implicated with the present case and moreover he is
not appearing beneficiary. It is pointed out that it is a maximum
case of dereliction of duty for which not even departmental
proceeding was initiated against this petitioner till date suggesting
prima-facie that even allegation of dereliction of duty not appears
convincing against him.
5. Arguing further, it is submitted that there is a civil
dispute between the informant and Tribhuvan Rai for which the
informant filed present FIR to create a pressure on petitioner being
Circle Officer, Bihta without prior sanction of State Government or
any steps taken for cancellation of jamabandi no. 53. It is also
submitted that informant has not made even any complaint before
public grievance redressal forum which is appropriate forum to
make complaint against any Government employee. While
concluding the argument, it is submitted that in view of aforesaid
save and except suspicion being head of the office nothing survives
against this petitioner, who is a man of clean antecedent.
6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State,
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
7. Mr. Anshul, learned sr. counsel while arguing for
O.P. No. 2/informant submitted that being head of the office
petitioner cannot escape from his liability. It is submitted that in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31791 of 2025(12) dt.12-01-2026
4/7
connivance with purchaser and other co-accused persons present
forgery took place, which was otherwise not possible without
involvement of this petitioner.
8. In view of the aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of the fact as primarily implication of this petitioner
appears being head of the office, where prima-facie except
suspicion nothing appears against him and admittedly he is not the
beneficiary of the transaction, accordingly petitioner above named,
in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court
within a period of four weeks, is directed to be released on bail,
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned ACJM-2nd, Danapur/concerned trial court where the case
is pending in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No. 1094 of 2024
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./ Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23228 of 2025
Heard the parties.
2. The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No.
1094 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 316(2), 318(2), 316(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31791 of 2025(12) dt.12-01-2026
5/7
of the BNS.
3. As per FIR, informant and his agnates have land
property in Khedarpura, Bihta, Patna and they are in possession of
this property for last 100 years. In June 2023, Tribhuvan Rai,
Biteshwar Rai, Sudeshwar Rai, Aditya Rai, this petitioner-Revenue
Clerk and Manjesh Kumar-Circle Officer committed forgery in
jamabandi register and made entries of informant’s land in the
name of Mahendra Gope through jamabandi no. 53. Rushu Singh a
retired employee posted at Bihta Anchal on contact Ranjit Rai, who
is a resident of this petitioners’s village and Fittan Rai of
Khedarpura Village are also involved in the alleged occurrence. It
is also alleged that on the direction of Hon’ble High Court co-
accused this petitioner was dismissed from the service and Form-A
was issued against Manjesh Kumar-Circle Officer. Further
allegation is that accused persons Tribhuvan Rai and his sons along
with Fittan Rai have ousted the laborers from the field of the
informant, on the basis of aforesaid FIR in issue was lodged.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that alleged forgery took place in the year
1995, whereas this petitioner joined alleged revenue office on
30.06.2021. It is submitted that his dismissal was quashed by the
Hon’ble Court through C.W.J.C. No. 18529 of 2024 dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31791 of 2025(12) dt.12-01-2026
6/7
05.12.2024 and petitioner in terms of this court direction filed his
representation before DM, Patna. It is submitted that being
Revenue Clerk he was implicated with the present case and
moreover also not appears beneficiary. It is pointed out that it is a
maximum case of dereliction of duty prima-facie for which not
even departmental proceeding was initiated against this petitioner
suggesting prima-facie that even allegation of dereliction of duty
not appears convincing against him.
5. Arguing further, it is submitted that there is a civil
dispute between the informant and Tribhuvan Rai for which the
informant filed present FIR to create a pressure on petitioner being
Revenue Clerk without prior sanction of State Government , or any
steps taken cancellation of jamabandi no. 53. It is also submitted
that informant has not made even any complaint before public
grievance redressal forum which is appropriate forum to make
complaint against any Government employee. While concluding
the argument, it is submitted that in view of aforesaid save and
except suspicion being office staff nothing survives against this
petitioner, who is a man of clean antecedent.
6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State,
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
7. Mr. Anshul, learned sr. counsel while arguing for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31791 of 2025(12) dt.12-01-2026
7/7
O.P. No. 2/informant submitted that being Revenue Clerk
petitioner cannot escape from his liability. It is submitted that in
connivance with purchaser and other co-accused persons present
forgery took place, which was otherwise not possible to take shape
without involvement of this petitioner.
8. In view of the factual submission and by taking note
of the fact as primarily implication of this petitioner appears being
Revenue Clerk of the office, where except suspicion nothing
appears against him and admittedly he is not the beneficiary of the
transaction, accordingly petitioner above named, in the event of
his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period
of four weeks, is directed to be released on bail, furnishing bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
ACJM-II, Danapur/concerned trial court where the case is pending
in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No. 1094 of 2024 subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./
Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…