Patna High CourtCR. MISC./58227/2018dismissed

Avinash Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2018-12-17Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.58227 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2018 Thana- PARSA District- Saran ====================================================== Avinash Ram S/o Gurucharan Ram, resident of Village- Bhawalpur, P.S. Marhowrrah, District- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Opposite Party/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Parsa P.S. Case No. 136 of 2018 dated 16.07.2018 instituted under Sections 420/413/414/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had sold a stolen motorcycle to the co-accused and was keeping one stolen motorcycle in his hut from where it was recovered by the police

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not live in the village and has been working at Hyderabad and has not come to the village since the last couple

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58227 of 2018 dt.17-12-2018 2/2 of years and further that he had no connection either with the hut or the motorcycle. It was further submitted that the Company where the petitioner was working has issued a certificate and the Mukhiya has also certified that the barn near the house of the petitioner does not belong to him.

5. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the firm has not given any blanket chit and has only stated that the petitioner was working in the firm for the last two years and even with regard to the certificate of the Mukhiya it was submitted that the same is irrelevant as it talks about the barn near the house of the petitioner whereas as per the F.I.R. and the seizure list the barn was of the petitioner from where the recovery was made.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U T