IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.31353 of 2010 ARVIND PODDAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE ------ 2/ 28/10/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Vigilance, Mr. Arvind Kumar. Allegation against this petitioner is that he succeeded to get a deed executed in his name for permanent lease of some property detailed in complaint petition, including building that is claimed genuine. Name was mutated. Ultimately, for the same after revision, writ was filed. Now, the admitted fact is that the mutation order is quashed as was passed in absence of heirs of the lesser by the Writ Court. Thereafter, a Title Suit is filed by heirs questioning the genuineness of the deed. Submission is that claim is bona fide may need enquiry but never be taken for constituting any offence and second submission is that complaint to Vigilance Judge for the act of a private public is nowhere provided in any law but stress is that there is bona fide claim and counter claim may not be ground of refusal of anticipatory bail. I agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is allowed. In the event of arrest or surrender within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in connection with Special Case No. 16 of 2010 arising out Vigilance Police Case No. 31 of 2010, Patna above named petitioner shall be 2 released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Vigilance North Bihar, Muzaffarpur subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr. P.C. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)