ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 15 (A)of 2012-D, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 423, 424, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The allegation made in the FIR is that the accused persons by manipulating three numbers of sale certificates and two numbers of land acquisition case records during the year 2008-2011 involving 54.226 acres of land under Deoghar Circle, District-Deoghar, dishonestly and fraudulently converted the nature of land from non transferable to transferable land and were sold/made an attempt to sell to different persons on the basis of fake no objection Certificate. 4. In course of investigation, it was detected that the petitioner was the Incharge District Sub Registrar, Deoghar from September, 2010 to June, 2011 and wilfully had not referred the list of Basauri plots as prepared during 1993 by the Circle Officer, Deoghar on order of Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, which were forwarded to District Sub Registrar, Deoghar while undertaking the registration of sale deeds, as a result of which, number of deeds were executed in respect of non transferable raiyati/government land. It was also disclosed that in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy with other accused persons, the petitioner had fraudulently executed various sale deeds transferring non transferable raiyati/government land in favour of different persons on the basis of false Bhu Satyapan Report/No Objection Certificate furnished by the co-accused persons. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that in 1993, the then Deputy Commissioner cum District Registrar, Deoghar had got prepared a list of transferable/Basauri plots falling under different Mouzas in all the circles of Deoghar District on the basis of khatiyan. The District Sub Registrar, Deoghar was forwarded the said list of transferable plots for ready reference while executing the sale deed/registering sale deeds. It has been submitted that the list of documents furnished by the C.B.I. in the charge sheet does not contain the letter, by which the list was forwarded to the District Sub Registrar. The District Sub Registrar, Deoghar was forwarded the said list of transferable plots for ready reference while executing the sale deed/registering sale deeds. It has been submitted that the list of documents furnished by the C.B.I. in the charge sheet does not contain the letter, by which the list was forwarded to the District Sub Registrar. It has further been submitted that an order was issued on 14.01.2014 stipulating that prior to transfer and registration of any land, verification was required to be carried out to ascertain the nature of the land as to whether the same was transferable or non transferable. The Circle Officer was required to submit a Bhu Satyapan Report/No Objection Certificate and the land was to be registered only on the basis of such verification report. It has also been submitted that an order was issued on 31.01.2008 by the then Deputy Commissioner wherein it was clarified that Bhu Satyapan Certificate would be issued only to Jamawandi raiyats, their legal heirs or their attorney and the District Sub Registrar was to ensure registration of land on the basis of Bhu Satyapan Certificate issued from the Circle Office, Deoghar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prior to the year 2004, the list of 1993 was referred. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Deputy Commissioner had sent the list of 1993 to the Sub Registrar in order to ascertain as to whether the plot of land to be registered was transferable or not. The allegation against the petitioner by referring to the list of 1993 cannot be sustained as it was not incumbent upon the petitioner to refer to the said list in view of subsequent orders, which were issued by the Deputy Commissioners. Continuing with his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 31.01.2008, wherein it was specifically directed that the District Sub Registrar has to register sale deed only on the basis of Bhu Satyapan Certificate. Learned counsel has further submitted that 1993 list does not have any statutory force and in fact from the information, which has been produced from the office of the District Registrar, Deoghar dated 7.2.2015 under Right to Information Act, it appears that the list of transferable Basauri lands with respect to Deoghar circle is only available and the list of other circle are absent. Further clarification has been made in the said letter dated 7.2.2015 as to who had received the said list or who had made available the said list is not available in the department. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submits that there is a conflicting view in the various orders passed by this Court and considering the order passed in LPA No. 8 of 2007, an opinion was given by the then Advocate General, Jharkhand to the effect that the Sub Registrar of every district should not verify the title of the vendor and cannot refuse to register the document of sale/gift on the ground of verification of title. Learned counsel thus submits that in terms of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar dated 31.01.2008 and in view of various judgments of this Court as well as the opinion of the Advocate General, the land was to be registered by the District Sub Registrar only on the basis of Bhu Satyapan Certificate submitted by the Circle Officer. It is never the duty of the District Sub Registrar to verify the genuineness of Bhu Satyapan Certificate. Learned counsel concludes that the petitioner in his capacity of District Sub Registrar at the relevant point of time had acted as per the Government instruction as well as the orders of this Court and therefore the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any omissions or commissions in fraudulent sale of non transferable land as transferable land. 6. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the C.B.I., has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that the petitioner by misusing his official position of Incharge District Sub Registrar had not followed Government instructions while executing the sale deeds and had never referred to 1993 list prepared on the orders of the then Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and has thus facilitated the sale/transfer of non transferable raiyati Jamabandi/Government land in violation of the provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, Santhal Pargana Tenancy(Supplementary) Act, 1949 and Santhal Pargana Regulation. It has been submitted that 1993 list with respect to transferable/Basauri land could not have been brushed aside or could not be ignored simply on the ground that 1993 instruction was neither rescinded nor withdrawn and the subsequent orders issued on 14.01.2004 and 31.01.2008 was merely continuation of the earlier letter. It has been submitted that 1993 list with respect to transferable/Basauri land could not have been brushed aside or could not be ignored simply on the ground that 1993 instruction was neither rescinded nor withdrawn and the subsequent orders issued on 14.01.2004 and 31.01.2008 was merely continuation of the earlier letter. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner during his tenure as Incharge District Sub Registrar, Deoghar never referred to the list of Basauri plot prepared in 1993 and such non consideration of such basic fact in registration of the sale deed shows the criminal conspiracy, in which the petitioner had played an active part along with other conspirators. It has also been submitted that the petitioner cannot take shelter of registering a sale deed on the basis of no objection Certificate as it was categorically held in the case of Doman Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, in WPC No. 1519 of 2007 that the registering authority has no ground asking for "No Objection Certificate" from the Circle Officer. Learned counsel has also referred to some instances mentioned in the charge sheet, which would show the falsity of sale certificate. It has, therefore, been submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to show the complicity of the petitioner in commission of the offence. 7. From the arguments, which have been advanced by both the learned counsel, it appears that the main issues seem to be with respect to whether the petitioner in his capacity as Incharge District Sub Registrar during the relevant period was required to follow 1993 list or the subsequent orders, which have been issued by the authorities. The charge sheet discloses that the petitioner had not referred to the list of Basauri Plots prepared during 1993 by the C.O., Deoghar while undertaking registration of sale deeds and by completely ignoring such Government instruction/list, sale deeds were executed fraudulently on the basis of false Bhu Satyapan Certificate furnished by the co-accused persons. The list of transferable/Basauri plots were prepared at the instance of the then Deputy Commissioner in the year 1993. Subsequently an executive order was issued introducing a three way process involving officers/karamchari of circle offices, the parties and the registry office and it was required to carry out verification to ascertain whether the land is transferable or non transferable. The list of transferable/Basauri plots were prepared at the instance of the then Deputy Commissioner in the year 1993. Subsequently an executive order was issued introducing a three way process involving officers/karamchari of circle offices, the parties and the registry office and it was required to carry out verification to ascertain whether the land is transferable or non transferable. As per the said executive instructions, the Circle Officer was required to submit the verification report/Bhu Satyapan Certificate/No Objection Certificate with a copy to the District Sub Registrar as well as the applicant. In 2008, the then Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar had ordered for issuance of Bhu Satyapan Certificate only to Jamawandi raiyats and the District Sub Registrar was directed to ensure registration of land only on the basis of Bhu Satyapan Certificate issued from Circle office, Deoghar. It is the contention of the petitioner that the sale deeds were registered based on No Objection Certificate/Bhu Satyapan Certificate submitted and the District Sub Registrar could not have looked beyond the said certificate. It, thus, appears that there was as such no specific guideline as to whether the petitioner was required to follow the practise prevalent since 1993 or the subsequent instructions. Since the petitioner had registered the sale deed based on No Objection Certificate/Bhu Satyapan Certificate, it cannot be concluded that there was a wilful action on the part of the petitioner not to have followed the 1993 list. In such circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender in the court below within a period of three weeks from today and pray for regular bail, and in that event, he will be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, C.B.I. cum District Judge-I, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 15(A) of 2012-D, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Bail granted.