IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41409 of 2009 UJJWAL KUMAR SINGH @ UJJWAL KUMAR Son of Abhay Kumar Singh resident of village Ami, Police Station Awtar Nagar, District Saran. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 2/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Petitioner’s implication in a case for the offence under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is sought to be doubted by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there is no actual recovery of the stolen vehicle in question, Maruti Zen Car, from the conscious possession of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the seizure list does not contain his (petitioner’s) signature. Counsel also submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and in this context he would refer to the averment made in paragraph 10 of the bail application. In the opinion of this court there would be little scope for speculation that the vehicle in question was stolen one, inasmuch as all the four inmates including the petitioner found in that stolen car has failed to produce any paper to show the legal possession of such vehicle, which then would lead to irresistible conclusion that the vehicle recovered was stolen care and good enough to reject the submission regarding absence of any report of theft of vehicle by its owner. the next submission doubting 2 the seizure of vehicle on account of absence of signature of petitioner on the seizure list can also be explained from the statement of seizure witnesses recorded in the case diary fully supporting such search and seizure of the vehicle as also the petitioner arrested at the spot in the company of those three persons who had confessed before the police the vehicle to be stolen one. In that view of the matter, complicity of the petitioner for the offence as alleged cannot be altogether ruled out. True it is that the counsel for the petitioner has made oral submission that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, but then statement made in paragraph 10 to say the least in this regard is very very vague. Considering all these aspects and taking into account that the petitioner is in custody only since 8.7.2009 in connection with an offence of theft of vehicle which has become quite rampant in these days, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present till he would complete one year of his judicial custody and accordingly his prayer for bail in rejected for the present. The petitioner may however renew his prayer for bail after one year, with a clear statement regarding his criminal antecedent and only if his trial is not concluded in the aforesaid period. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)