Government officials must act in accordance with legal mandates, and failure to do so, especially in corruption cases, justifies denial of bail and necessitates custodial interrogation.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mrs. Anjana Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the A.C.B.

2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Hazaribagh A.C.B. Sadar P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025 registered under sections 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance (ACB), Hazaribagh.

3. Mrs. Anjana Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is presently posted as Deputy Director Panchayati Raj, Panchayati Raj Department and he was the Circle Officer at the relevant period of time and has acted strictly in terms of law as a public authority within the norms stipulated by the law and he has been falsely implicated in this case. She next draws the attention of the Court to the contents of F.I.R. and submits that allegations are made that the petitioner has recommended for cancellation of five jamabandi however he has not acted for cancellation of further illegal jamabandi recorded in the name of other persons. Learned senior counsel further submits that after almost 14 years of alleged mutation by transfer by the petitioner which has never been challenged and still rent receipts are being issued, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case. She next submits that the petitioner has not created fresh jamabandi and by way of transfer of mutation and after considering the long existing jamabandi created earlier by respective officers on the basis of existing provisions and Government circulars the petitioner has mutated the land in favour of 23 persons. She also submits that allegation relating to Khata No. 95 is there that khata is huge chunk of land having 572 acres of land in view of that it cannot be said that the petitioner has transferred the government land only. She next submits that so far cancellation of mutation is concerned, that is governed by the Bihar Land Reforms Act and the procedures have been prescribed therein. By way of referring section 4 (h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and section 14 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, she submits that by following these provisions the petitioner has passed order. She also submits that reports have been called upon by the petitioner which was submitted by the Circle Inspector and due publication of notice was made and thereafter the order has been passed and to buttress this argument she draws the attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau. She also submits that once a long standing jamabandi is there the petitioner cannot suo motu take step for cancellation and this is settled principle of law and by way of example she has cited judgment of the Patna High court in the case of“ Ram Prit Rao Vs. State of Bihar ” reported in 2006 (2) PLJR 245 . By way of placing the facts of paras 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations of illegally doing the mutation in favour of the 23 persons by the petitioner, are false which is fortified by the documents brought on record by the ACB. She next submits that land was mutated on the basis of sale deed of raiyati land created in 1959. She further submits that petitioner has done due diligence which is fortified by Annexure B. She has repeated her argument by way of saying that Khata No. 95 is huge chunk of land and it cannot be said that onl