IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36227 of 2009 DHIRENDRA KUMAR JHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.30757 of 2009 NAVEEN KUMAR JHA @ DABLOO JHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 1.12.2009 Both the applications for anticipatory bail have been heard together as they arise out of same P.S.Case number that is Dhamdaha P.S.Case No. 32/09. In the case, a Bolero vehicle without any paper was found in possession of one Dilip Kumar Thakur on whose Sanha the F.I.R. was lodged but it appeared in course of investigation that the vehicle in question was stolen one and Dilip Kumar Thakur has named petitioner Dhirendra Kumar Jha of Cr. Misc. No. 36227 of 2009. Petitioner Naveen Kumar Jha @ Dabloo Jha’s name appeared in course of investigation as one who is playing racket in sale and purchase of vehicles. For petitioner Dhirendra Kumar Jha of Cr. Misc. No. 36227 of 2009, it is said that co-accused Jitendra Kumar Jha having similar allegation, has been allowed bail on regular side by another Bench of this Court and for both petitioners, it is said that they have no criminal antecedent and there is no cogent evidence against them. No doubt in the case diary the antecedent of petitioners is not mentioned anywhere. Name of petitioner Dhirendra Kumar Jha has appeared in the statement of Dilip Kumar Thakur in whose 2 possession Bolero vehicle was found. A deed is filed with Sanha that the vehicle in question was sold by petitioner Dhirendra Kumar Jha after receiving one lac rupees and rest amount was to be paid by Dilip Kumar Thakur in near future and stolen Bolero is recovered or handed over to the police, may be a case in which its paper was not handed over to Dilip Kumar Thakur by petitioner Dhirendra Kumar Jha and co-accused Jitendra Kumar Jha, in that case, Bolero should be returned to Dhirendra Kumar Jha and Jitendra Kumar Jha and pressure should be made to receive back the amount handed over to them. The police up-till-now is unable to find out the owner of Bolero. Only involvement of these petitioners along with Jitendra Kumar Jha has come in picture. It is clear case in which a gang appears involved, having active and skill participants otherwise there could be no reason that genuine owner of the vehicle would not have come in picture. Several prospects are seen to appear after arrest of these petitioners including recovery of other vehicles or revealing of genuine owner of the vehicle. So, I find it not a fit case in which any liberty can be given to petitioners finding their case parallel to co-accused Jitendra Kumar who has been allowed regular bail by a Bench of this Court. Prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of both the petitioners of both the applications is rejected. A.I (Mandhata Singh, J.)