The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence presented by the C.B.I. supported the case of prosecution, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the C.B.I.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 07(S) of 2013EOWR for the offence registered under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the written report of one Rajiv Ranjan, Superintendent of Police, C.B.I, EOW, Ranchi alleging inter alia that pursuant to Notification No. 6/CBI605/2012157 dated 15th January, 2013 issued by the Govt. of Jharkhand under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act 25 of 1946) and corresponding Notification No. 228/53/2012AVDII dated 12.07.2013 issued by the Govt. of India under section 5, r/w section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, FIR No. 120/2012 dated 12.04.2012, under section 120B, 406, 420 I.P.C and section 138 of N.I Act of PS Lower Bazar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand registered against the accused persons namely Smt. Anamika Nandi, S. Nandi, Arvind Singh, Shyam Kishroe Gupta and Abdul Wahab, all of Sanjeevani Buildcon, Ranchi is reregistered and taken up for investigation by the C.B.I.

4. It is alleged that the above named accused persons in conspiracy with each other committed criminal breach of trust and also cheated the complainant Shri Umashankar Prasad Shrivastava to the tune of Rs. 6,85,000/-on the false pretest of sale of 1350 sqft house and one 120 sqft shop in the Aishwarya Residency, PhaseII of M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon. Subsequently, when the complainant realized that the accused persons cheated him, he pursued for refund of booking amount. Upon this the accused persons gave him five cheques total amounting of Rs. 6,85,000/-which was dishonoured, hence this case.

5. Police after completion of investigation submitted final form in this case, which reveals that the petitioner being District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi executed 57 sale deeds covering a total area of 245.97 Decimals lands belonging to plot no. 841, khata no. 155, Thana No. 228, Mauza Pundag against the maximum 50 decimal lands. He also accepted Rupees five lakhs as bribe from Shri Shyam Kishore Gupta for extending such favour. Apart from this, he accepted a bribe of Rs. 500/on the execution of each sale deed made by M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Shri Mehra received a new Sx4 vehicle amounting to Rs. 8,06,163/-as quid proquo from M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd through its director and co-accused Shyam Kishroe Gupta. It also reveals that the petitioner was required to give information about the sale deed executed by M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd to the Circle Officer, Ratu/Nagri. But, he deliberately did not pass on the said information for pecuniary gains resulting in illegal mutation of excess land.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that during the period i.e. from 29.05.2007 to 27.01.2012 the petitioner was posted as Sub-Registrar, Ranchi and in course of his duty, he had registered several documents/deeds as per the provision of Registration Act, 1908. The allegation against the petitioner that he had registered sale deeds measuring 245.97 decimals of land at the behest of a persons who did not have authority to sell more than 50 decimals of land is completely baseless and unfounded. In this context, it is stated and submitted that admittedly the power of attorney executed in favour of Arvind Kumar Singh, was a registered general power of attorney as contra distinguished from a special or specific power of attorney. In the case of general power of attorney, the registering authority in terms of Rule 85(2) of the Registration Rules is not required to make any endorsement after executing a deed based upon the said power of attorney and thus there is no scope under the extant laws for