IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24472 of 2010 DINBANDHU son of Sri Arjun Prasad Sharma, R/O village Mahsoura, P.S. Ramgarh Chowk, Dist. Lakhisarai, at present working as Assistant Teacher, High School, Chandan, Dist. Banka ……..Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sharad Kumar, son of Arjun Prasad Sharma, R/O village Mohsoura, P.S. Ramgarh Chowk, Dist. Lakhisarai …….opposite parties. ----------- 2 21.7.2010 Heard the parties including the counsel appearing for O.P. no.2 complainant. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking modification of a part of the order dated 6.5.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12306 of 2010 whereby the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in connection with complaint case no. 652 C/2009 with an observation as follows: - “It is made clear that for deciding the partition suit the alleged document, which is subject matter of the dispute in the present case, shall not be used by the either party in support of their claim for partition. “ Admittedly the petitioner and the complainant are the full brothers and partition suit with respect to joint family property is pending between the parties. According to the prosecution case as disclosed in the complaint petition, on the basis of family arrangement the document of partition was created showing the partition of the property between the parties including the petitioner and the complainant. The petitioner is alleged to have made certain interpolation in that partition document and in fact the aforesaid document is the basis of entire prosecution case against the petitioner. Taking into consideration the entire facts and particularly about the pendency of the - 2 - partition suit the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the aforesaid order dated 6.5.2010 with an observation as referred to above that the document in question which is subject matter of dispute in the present case shall not be used by either party in support of their claim in the partition suit. By taking the advantage of the aforesaid order dated 6.5.2010, as has been informed by the learned counsel appearing for O.P. no.2-cum complainant, the petitioner has furnished his bail bond and has been enlarged on bail and thereafter the present petition has been filed for deletion of that part of observation which has been quoted above. This Court does not find ay good ground for modifying the order dated 6.5.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12306 of 2010 as if such prayer is allowed and the document in question is allowed to be used by either party in the partition suit then that will certainly adverse the claim of other party. Needless to say that the partition is not required to be decided on the basis of aforesaid solitary document. Parties are free to produce the other oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. For the reasons stated above, the present petition for modification stands rejected. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) M.Rahman