Hassan Iqbal @ Hassan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29841 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -104 Year- 2016 Thana -SIWAN CITY District- SIWAN ====================================================== Hassan Iqbal @ Hassan son of Late Kaish Ali resident of Mohalla - Mirchai Sah Ke Takiya, Police Station - Siwan (Town), District Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amir Alam, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-10-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Siwan (Town) P.S. Case No. 104/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 461, 380, 411 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hifzur Rahman the informant alleged that he runs a shop of motor parts and he found that somebody is committing theft in his shop. On suspicion he enquired from Taju Khan and Guddu who were working in the shop of the informant and they disclosed that they were committing theft of motor parts and selling it to the petitioner. When the informant along with Taju Khan and Guddu were going towards the house of the petitioner, he saw Sakil brother of the petitioner was on a T.V.S motorcycle having three bags on the motorcycle and he fled away after seeing them. On

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29841 of 2016 (3) dt.04-10-2016 2/2 search different motor parts were recovered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Nobody has seen that the petitioner purchased any stolen motor parts. The brother of the petitioner was carrying motor parts in three bags which are said to have been seized, but it appears that two workers namely, Taju Khan and Guddu who were working in the shop of the informant have very categorically stated that they were committing theft and selling the stolen parts to the petitioner. From the house of petitioner the brother was taking motor parts and when confronted with the informant, he fled away.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders in the court below learned court below shall consider his prayer for regular bail on its own merit.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T