Bhola Patel v. The State of Bihar

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 3 19-08-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2, learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant, who has suo motu appeared. The petitioner no. 2 apprehends arrest in connection with Bairia P. S. Case No. 41 of 2013 in which cognizance has been taken by the Court under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 submits that though there is accusation against the petitioner, but from the events narrated in the FIR and the delay in approaching the police, it is obvious that the same has been done for oblique reasons with mala fide intentions. It is submitted that though the 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc.

No.22821 of 2013 (3) dt.19-08-2013 incident is alleged to have taken place on 17.01.2013 but the written complain was made only on 23.2.2013 and even after that the FIR has been lodged only on 01.03.2013. It is submitted that there has been no recovery from the petitioner no. 2 and he has clean antecedent. It is further submitted that from the entire allegation made in the FIR, it is obvious that the same are not believable inasmuch as it has been said that the petitioner no. 2 kept assuring the informant to return the stolen articles and ultimately the same was not returned hence the FIR was lodged and also that if at all there was any truth in the story, then the petitioner no. 2 would not have left the cash which was kept in the box and lock and the key on the table while going away. Learned counsel submits that since he was a person who is alleged to have done some work in the house of the informant, then committing the offence and leaving the evidence inasmuch as the lock and the key which are said to have been found near the box, cannot be said to be believable since in the normal course of human behaviour, no guilty person would leave such an obvious evidence against himself.

It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 2 has clean antecedent. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22821 of 2013 (3) dt.19-08-2013 bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today, the petitioner no. 2 be enlarged on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah in Bairia P.S. Case No. 41 of 2013 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Prakash/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)