IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46060 of 2008 AJAY KUMAR YADAV @ AJAY KUMAR RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 13.02.2009 Heard. The case relates to commission of robbery with the driver of the truck which was on road. A driver stated that the criminals having put their motorcycle on the road, got the truck stopped and robbed the driver of Rs.30000 and driver informed his employer by phone and also gave an information as to in which direction the criminals were heading to. The owner of the truck also rushed along with some persons, chased and attempted to capture the culprit and in that attempt, the petitioner was caught. Contention is that the petitioner was not found in possession of any part of the booty. The contention further is that the owner of the truck has not been examined and that if the owner of the truck was so near the route of the truck, there was no reason for the driver carrying such a huge amount. Things never happen as the defence wishes. If that could have happened, there could not be commission of any offence. For considering prayer for bail, what has to be done is to treat the acts alleged to be true on their face value and then consider the defence. It was not that the petitioner was the lone culprit to commit the crime, there were two more. There could not be any explanation by the prosecution for all allegations. Considering the fact that the petitioner was caught on - 2 - chase, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)