JUDGMENT : AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J. 1. The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. The matter has been heard out of turn on the basis of motion slip being filed by learned counsel for the petitioners yesterday, which was allowed. 3. Heard Mr. Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Parmanand Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State and Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the informant. 4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Phenhara P.S. Case No. 27 of 2020 dated 17.03.2020, instituted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The allegation against the petitioner no. 1, and his son who is petitioner no. 2, is that the gift deed executed by the father of the petitioner no. 1 in favour of petitioner no. 2, who is his grandson, the lands in question were ancestral lands did not belong to the transferor as it fell in the share of the informant who is also the original co-parcener and to whom such land was given at the time of partition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have absolutely no role in the entire allegation, even if for the sake of argument, it is believed that the lands in question did not come in the share and belong to the father of the petitioner no. 1, as the petitioner no. 2 is the beneficiary of that deed and it was for the transferor to be aware of what he had. However, learned counsel submitted that on merits also, the present criminal case is absolutely not maintainable and abuse of the process of the Court. It was submitted that on the basis of original partition, more than two decades back, of which Panchnama was also executed, the parties got their separate Jamabandies and Jamabandi No. 51 was created in favour of the father of the petitioner no. 1 whereas Jamabandi No. 52 was created in favour of the informant, but no details, either of khata number or plot number was mentioned in the Jamabandi. It was submitted that under bona fide belief, from among the total area covered under the Jamabandi, a piece of land was gifted by the father of the petitioner no. 1 in favour of petitioner no. 2. It was submitted that under bona fide belief, from among the total area covered under the Jamabandi, a piece of land was gifted by the father of the petitioner no. 1 in favour of petitioner no. 2. It was submitted that it is not a case where the gift deed was beyond the total area of Jamabandi No. 51 in favour of the father of the petitioner no. 1. Learned counsel submitted that otherwise also, even if there is any controversy with regard to the concerned piece of land coming in the share of the informant, it is a civil dispute where evidence is required to be taken, including documentary, and for the parties to prove as to which exact plots were allotted in their share and which exact plots are covered in their respective Jamabandis, which has still not been done. Thus, even if there is a gift of deed in favour of petitioner no. 2, it has not caused any irreparable damage to the informant as he has not claimed that based on the gift deed, the petitioners have either taken possession or tried to deal with the lands in question. Thus, for all practical purposes, no steps on the ground have been taken. He reiterated that the informant had the remedy to get a clarification from the civil Court of competent jurisdiction with regard to the plots coming under the Jamabandi and share of the respective parties and then, based on the same, if the plots in question came in the share of the informant, consequences would follow, and anyone aggrieved would have the right to institute any proceeding, but before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, but on the purely civil side, and in any view of the matter, the criminal case is totally not maintainable. It was submitted that the petitioners are respectable citizens having no criminal antecedent and basically the dispute is between close relatives and also with regard to ancestral property. It was submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner no. 1 and the informant was the same person whose property has been divided among the two branches. 7. Learned APP submitted that from what is on record and the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that the matter is required to be adjudicated on the civil side. 8. 1 and the informant was the same person whose property has been divided among the two branches. 7. Learned APP submitted that from what is on record and the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that the matter is required to be adjudicated on the civil side. 8. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the criminal aspect of the matter is also highlighted for the reason that the land in question was never allotted in the share of the father of petitioner no. 1 and he knew the same and still went ahead with the transfer. It was submitted that the father of the petitioner no. 1 had in fact filed a petition before the District Magistrate, East Champaran in 2019 with regard to getting the exact plots mentioned in the Jamabandi which had been omitted and the present land was also part of that, but without waiting for the final outcome, the gift deed has been executed. It was submitted that inquiry has revealed that the land in question was in possession of the informant. 9. At this juncture, on a query of the Court as to whether the land in question is beyond the area mentioned in the Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner no. 1’s father, learned counsel fairly submitted that the area of the gifted land is much less than the total area reflected in the Jamabandi No. 51 in favour of the father of the petitioner no. 1. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by way of reply, submitted that the original Panchnama relating to partition is with the informant and from the same, it would be clear that there is interpolation by adding the present land in the said Panchnama to show that it fell in the share of the informant. It was submitted that details not being there would be clear from the fact that even after two decades, the Jamabandi in favour of the informant, which also does not detail any khata number or plot number, no steps have been taken by the informant to get any clarification or to get the same noted in the official revenue records in the Jamabandi No. 52 created in his favour; which also indicates that no mens rea or criminal intent can be attributed against the accused persons in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that, at the cost of repetition, the issue, if at all is to be raised, before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below, within eight weeks from today, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari in Phenhara PS Case No. 27 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further: (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners and (ii) that the petitioners shall co-operate with the police/ prosecution and the Court. Failure to co-operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds. 12. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 13. The application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.