IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9924 of 2009 ANIL KUMAR, SON OF SRI RAM CHANDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ITIMHA, P.S. NASRIGANJ, DISTRICT ROHTAS---PETITIONER. Versus STATE OF BIHAR---OPP. PARTY. WITH Cr.Misc. No.15891 of 2009 1. NATHUNI RAM, SON OF LATE SAHDEO RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAJURI, POST OFFICE LAGMA, POLICE STATION GARHWA, DISTRICT GARHWA, STATE JHARKHAND. 2. LALDEO PASWAN, SON OF LATE RAM PYARE PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KODMARAI, POST OFFICE PINJRANWAN, POLICE STATION KURTHA, DISTRICT ARWAL-----PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-----OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 02. 10.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioner Anil Kumar is the owner of the Vehicle. Petitioner Nathuni Ram served as District Transport Officer, Arwal and petitioner Laldeo Paswan is the Head Clerk in the D.T.O. office, Arwal. They are apprehending their arrest in connection with a case registered for the offence under Sections 414, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Penal Code, which was lodged on the allegation that a jeep was purchased by one Anita from Akbar Khan and was first transferred in the name of Anita who transferred the vehicle in the name of petitioner Anil Kumar. The three transfer were recorded in the office of the D.T.O., Arwal under approval from petitioner nos.1 and 2 of Cr. Misc. No. 15891 of 2009. Later the jeep was found parked in front of the police station and the authorities of the police station seized the same on 12.7.2007 whereafter Anil Kumar approached the authorities on the basis of the owner book as also other documents issued in his favour by the office of the D.T.O., Arwal and - 2 - appreciating the contents of the owner book the vehicle was directed to be released by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas, however, with liberty to the police officers to get the documents verified. In the light of the liberty granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas while releasing the vehicle in favour of Anil Kumar, the Officer-in-Charge concerned made inquiry from the office of the D.T.O. where the vehicle was shown to have been registered as per its registration number. In course of inquiry, it transpired that the ostensible registration number on the vehicle was allotted to a two wheeler and the vehicle is a stolen vehicle, whereafter the present case was registered against Anil Kumar, his transferor Anita and the D.T.O and the Head Clerk responsible for transfer of the vehicle in favour of Anita and Anil Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner Anil Kumar submitted that he is the third purchaser of the vehicle, as would appear from the ownership document given to him by Anita wherefrom it appears that vehicle was first registered in the name of Akbar Khan in the office of the D.T.O. Arwal and as petitioner Anil Kumar is a bonafide purchaser from Anita on the basis of the documents which was taken to be a valid document, until inquiry was made under the order of the C.J.M., Rohtas, he should be admitted to the privilege of bail in the event of arrest as he purchased the vehicle on payment of Rs.1,30,000/- on the basis of the documents issued from the office of the D.T.O., Arwal. Counsel for the petitioners Nathuni Ram and Laldeo Prasad - 3 - has submitted that they acted in compliance of the instructions of the Transport Department contained in the minutes of the Secretary, Transport dated 26.9.2006, Annexure-3, which asked the office of the D.T.O. to register the vehicle at the earliest so as to facilitate augmentation of the revenue and as the vehicle was registered after receipt of no objection from Haryana, which was ultimately found to be forged, they should also be admitted to the privilege of bail in the event of arrest. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to accept the submissions of the parties and direct the petitioners above named to surrender in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Dehri P.S. Case No. 242 of 2008 within four weeks from the date or receipt/production of this order in the court below and apply for regular bail, which should be considered in accordance with law considering the case of Anil Kumar that it was he who applied for release of the vehicle on the basis of the ownership document, which was given to him by the office of the D.T.O., Arwal, which was found to be forged after necessary verification made at a later stage. In the circumstances his case may be considered in a manner different from that of Nathuni Ram and Laldeo Paswan. Both the applications are, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)