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. 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 only the Government land has been mutated by the petitioner. She also submits that five jamabandi were recommended for cancellation by the petitioner as it has come in the knowledge of the petitioner that those jamabandi were not created in accordance with law. She next submits that petitioner’s successor and predecessors have done mutation and in view of that allegation against the petitioner is false. She next submits that allegation in the F.I.R. is made of not following the guidelines of the Hon’ble High Court of order dated 12.12.1996 passed in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995, is not correct. She next submits that petitioner’s successor and predecessors have done mutation and in view of that allegation against the petitioner is false. She next submits that allegation in the F.I.R. is made of not following the guidelines of the Hon’ble High Court of order dated 12.12.1996 passed in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995, is not correct. By placing the said judgment, learned senior counsel submits that there is no restriction of transferring the land and only observation is made that forest land will not be used for other purpose. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also questions the propriety of the document contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed by the A.C.B as there is cut at top and it has been stated that plots described in that documents are restricted to be registered to another person. She next submits that notification which has come in the year 2015 with regard to restriction of transfer of land has been quashed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 01.05.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 5088 of 2018. She submits that there is no allegation of money trail against the petitioner. She also submits that the petitioner was cooperating in the investigation and in spite of that petitioner has been arrested by the ACB. She next submits that the father-in-law of the petitioner was ill and he was being treated at Delhi and the petitioner has gone to Delhi on 13.10.2025 and the father-in-law of the petitioner has left for his heavenly abode and thereafter the petitioner came along with body of the father-in-law in the morning of 14.10.2025 and in view of that the petitioner has not been able to appear before the A.C.B. She also submits that the contents of notice of ACB under section 35(3) of BNSS was not properly drafted and vague grounds have been given and even the threatening was there that if the petitioner will not appear before the ACB he will be arrested. She further submits that bail application of the co-accused namely, Binay Kumar Singh has been rejected by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted interim bail to the Co-accused Binay Kumar Singh by order dated 17.12.2025 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. (s) 20248/2025. She further submits that bail application of the co-accused namely, Binay Kumar Singh has been rejected by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted interim bail to the Co-accused Binay Kumar Singh by order dated 17.12.2025 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. (s) 20248/2025. In this background she submits that for the allegation of 2010, the F.I.R has been registered in the year, 2025 and in view of that the petitioner may kindly be granted regular bail. Lastly, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.10.2025. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the Anti Corruption Bureau vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail of the petitioner and submits that in the contents of F.I.R. the plot number and Khata number disclosed, are tallying in the light of Annexure-A of the F.I.R that is details of 23 mutation cases. He draws the attention of the Court to Annexure-A of the counter affidavit and submits that document relates to Gairmajarua Khas Forest Land and that is the document which is in the signature of the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner was knowing about the fact inspite of that he has passed the order. He next submits that records of mutation case was obtained by the I.O. of the case and further signature of document annexed as Annexure-B, it appears that the petitioner has also signed as the Circle Officer and Rajendra Prasad Singh as Circle Inspector and their signatures are there at Annexure-A. He also submits that in paras 153 to 165 and 271 to 280 of the Case Diary it has come that then Circle Inspector namely, Rajendra Prasad Singh and Revenue Sub Inspector namely, Ramprakash Choudhary improperly submitted report for mutation in respect of the 22 Mutation Cases and have given incorrect enquiry report and on the basis of that petitioner has passed order of mutation. 6. By way of drawing the attention of the Court to para 18 of the counter affidavit learned counsel for the ACB submits that during course of investigation the I.O. of the present case made an attempt to collect the original records pertaining to 22 Mutation Cases done by the petitioner whereby it has been revealed that the after plot no. 1 upto plot nos. 1 upto plot nos. 773 were found unavailable at the Circle Office, Sadar, Hazaribagh and thereafter documents of plots were found to be missing and not traceable. He further submits that this has been done by the Circle Officer, Staff along with the Land Mafias destroying the khatian of the land in question and this fact has come in para 188 of the case diary. He further submits that ACB has taken all care so that the petitioner may cooperate in the investigation. By way of drawing the attention of the Court to para 120 of the case diary he submits that the petitioner is attempting lying low or going into hiding in order to evade his arrest. He next submits that on 07.10.2025 notice under section 35(3) of BNSS was sent through the Special Messenger to the petitioner directing him to appear within a week and that notice has been received by the brother of the petitioner on the same day inspite of that the petitioner failed to appear before the I.O and an information was received by the reliable source that the petitioner is attempting lying low or going into hiding in order to evade his arrest and in view of that again notice was issued on 13.10.2025 through Special Messenger directing the petitioner to appear on 14.10.2025 before the I.O. He next submits that since the petitioner was involved in rituals of his father-in-law on 13.10.2025 and in view of that A.C.B has not disturbed the petitioner and the petitioner has assured the I.O. that he will appear on 14.10.2025 and in view of that it has transpired that the petitioner is attempting to go underground again and information was received by the A.C.B that petitioner is available in his office at 6.00 P.M. on 14.10.2025 and accordingly the team reached the office of the petitioner and sought for his co-operation in investigation however, the petitioner denied to go along with the team and told that he will not go along with the team after the office hours are over. thereafter the petitioner was taken into custody on 15.10.2025. He also refers to Annexure-1 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and submits that land has been sold by Shashi Shekhar Prasad, Ramdhani Ram and Rajendra Prasad Prasad however, reason has been given of raiyati right of Bhimnath Mahto and Parputo Kapur Devi. thereafter the petitioner was taken into custody on 15.10.2025. He also refers to Annexure-1 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and submits that land has been sold by Shashi Shekhar Prasad, Ramdhani Ram and Rajendra Prasad Prasad however, reason has been given of raiyati right of Bhimnath Mahto and Parputo Kapur Devi. He submits that it is not known how Shashi Shekhar Ram, Ramdhanri Ram and others who are the seller of the land were related to Bhimnath Mahto and Parputo Kapur Devi. He further submits that in view of this fact this petitioner being the Circle Officer is fully responsible for illegal mutation in favour of 23 persons and in view of that the regular bail of this petitioner may kindly be rejected as there is every apprehension that seeing the past conduct of the petitioner the petitioner will not cooperate in the investigation. 7. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties it transpires that allegation is made against the petitioner in the F.I.R that he has suo motu has recommended for cancellation of five jamabandi with regard to land in question however, he has not taken any step so far rest of the jamabandi are concerned. 8. There is no doubt that section 4 (h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and section 14 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 prescribed procedure of passing order of mutation. However that procedure is required to be made in terms of strict provision made therein. It has been alleged that on the incorrect report of Circle Inspector namely, Rajendra Prasad Singh and Revenue Sub Inspector namely, Ramprakash Choudhary the petitioner has passed order of mutation. The plot numbers mentioned in the contents of F.I.R and annexure-A which is part of the F.I.R some of plots are similar. 9. It has been argued by way of referring Annexure-A of the counter-affidavit that document is in the signature of the petitioner and that document relates to Gairmajurua Jungle Land which are not transferable and in view of that the petitioner was knowing all these facts of the nature of the land as the said document is in the signature of petitioner which is not denied in course of the argument by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. It has come in para 188 of the case diary that document relating to khata no. 95 of plot. No. 01 to 773 are found in record and thereafter the documents relating to plot nos. 811, 848, 1055, 1060, 1062, 1063 and 776/1055 which were all mutated by the petitioner and those documents are missing from the record. 10. It has been alleged that those documents have been purposely removed from the record of the Circle Office. Now the petitioner is evading his arrest as noted in the argument of the learned counsel for the Anti Corruption Bureau. 11. The documents on the record and averments made in the counter affidavit of the A.C.B, it transpires that the petitioner was not cooperating in the investigation. 12. Although there has been a long delay in the initiation of proceedings, the gravity of the allegations, the alleged abuse of official position, custodial interrogation cannot be diluted merely on the ground of delay. Even in a case based largely on documentary evidence, custodial interrogation may be essential to trace the chain of transactions ascertain complicity, and prevent further suppression or tampering of records. 13. The role of the Circle Officer in the State of Jharkhand was the subject matter before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WP (PIL) No. 4736 of 2018 and analogous cases wherein paras 16, 18, 23 and 26 it has been observed as under:- “ 16. This Court to say the least is shocked to note at no stage, any query has been raised regarding the issue of title of the land by the concerned authorities and the land has been allowed to be transferred in favour of one or the other private party even though the land had already been acquired as has been dealt with in the various orders as referred hereinabove. 18. This Court needs to comment herein about the conduct of the district administration including the Revenue Authorities which include the Circle Officers of the concerned circle that circle officers who were in the possession of the entire record but very surprisingly, the Circle Officers of the concerned circle without verifying the said record had entered the name of the subsequent purchasers), even though as per the Bihar Maintenance of Records Act, 1973, the circle officer is the custodian of the record. It is also surprising that the circle officer has placed the record before this Court but while entering the name of the litigant concerned at the relevant time, has not taken care to even consult much less verify the said record. 23 is only after the order having been passed by this Court directing the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA to conduct an enquiry with respect to the issue of encroachment and the infrastructure then the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA by doing the commendable job has reported about the encroachment over 07 acres of land within the precincts of the RIMS as has been taken note in the order dated 03.12.2025. Therefore, the authority of the RIMS is also equally accountable for allowing such rampant encroachment to carry on within the precincts of the RIMS. 26. On similar line, this Court can also handover the investigation to the CBI in the present scenario but, for the present, we are refraining ourself in handing over the investigation to the CBI rather this Court is directing the State Police to institute FIR and investigation be conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau against the erring officials.” 14. So far as parity is concerned, the law is well settled that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case on fact is exactly similar then only the principle of parity in the matter of passing order is to be passed but if there is difference in between the facts then the principle of parity is not to be applied. It is also well known that the Court cannot exercise its power in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and only because another accused has been granted bail, the present petitioner is also entitled for bail if the present facts are not similar, i.e. not the law. It is also well known that the Court cannot exercise its power in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and only because another accused has been granted bail, the present petitioner is also entitled for bail if the present facts are not similar, i.e. not the law. So far the co-accused Binay Kumar Singh is concerned, he was the purchaser of the land in question and the present petitioner is Circle Officer and he has not acted in the light of his jurisdiction and it was expected from the government officer to protect the right of the State and not to connive in transferring the land of the State and in view of these facts, the ground of parity is not made out so far this petitioner is concerned and such the argument with regard to parity is, hereby rejected. 15. Further the case relied by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ram Prit Rao (supra) is on another facts. As such that case is not helping the petitioner. 16. What has been discussed herein above and the materials on record it clearly suggests that the petitioner has connived with the purchasers and others passed the said orders of mutation. The petitioner has also not cooperated in the investigation. 17. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the present bail application fails and is hereby rejected at this stage. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed.