The petitioner was apprehended arrest for the theft of motorcycle along with one other. The Motorcycle was found in the courtyard of the petitioner and he claimed that he had nothing to do with it. The court in the light of all facts and circumstances dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail. The court was inclined towards the contention that the accused is liable of theft and the case shall go on. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Vikash Kumar Choudhary v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No.15176 of 2021].
The facts of the case were that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the Case instituted under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the case the informant’s motorcycle was stolen during night for which the present case has been instituted. The co-accused was the person who stole the motorcycle at the night and ran away with it. To be safe the motorcycle was kept at petitioner’s house and thereafter when the police has gone to the house of the petitioner, from his courtyard, motorcycle was recovered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though from the circumstances, it appears that there is recovery of stolen motorcycle from the courtyard of the petitioner but from the seizure list, there being no signature of any inmate of the house, raises serious doubts with regard to authenticity of the allegation of such recovery from the house of the petitioner. They said that the petitioner had no other criminal antecedent. Also the seizure list contained the signature of the co-accused only.
The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the CCTV Footage contained two people and one was identified as the co-accused and he was apprehended for the same as well. They contended that the case is at the stage of trial where evidence would be adduced by the respective parties, but for the present, there is strong presumption of guilt and involvement of the petitioner in committing the crime.
The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP. Thus, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.” The petition was hence dismissed on the said decision.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
