Chaneshwar Ram @ Chandeshwar Ram vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

Heard Mr. Rajneesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Arif, learned In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘APP’) for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Siswan (Chainpur OP) PS Case No.236 of 2019 dated 03.12.2019, instituted under Sections

420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he was the illegal clerk and agent for the Revenue Karamchari and was instrumental in creating forged

settlement order in favour of the other co-accused and issuing rent receipts to them.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no direct link with him as he is not an employee of the authorities and has no connection

with the dispute. It was submitted that it is between other co-accused as they had interest and authority in the matter. Learned counsel submitted that

even the records, which are said to have been created and relied upon, are not in the custody of the petitioner and, thus, he is not liable for any

interpolation or forgery committed in the same. Learned counsel submitted that other co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by the Court

below, though no details have been brought on record with regard to the same.

Learned APP submitted that the petitioner cannot be said to be innocent as he is the main person, who is said to be the agent of the Revenue

Karamchari and, thus, it was he, who used to do the dirty works. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner was party to the falsification of records

where based on interpolation made on the so-called order of the Circle Officer in which the prayer for mutation of other co-accused had been

rejected, the same was shown as having been allowed and thereafter receipts were issued in favour of the other co-accused. Learned counsel

submitted that the matter is worse as the allegation is that he, without any authority, was doing the work of the Revenue Karamchari and, thus, it is

obvious that he had major role acting as agent for consideration and further, that without any official power or authority he was acting in the matter

and playing with the public records and committing illegalities without any control or accountability.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-

arrest bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.