IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32855 of 2009 MANOJ SINGH, son of Sri Horil Singh, resident of Mohalla Ganga Nagar Ward No.5, P.S. Siliguri, District Darjiling, State West Bengal Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 26.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for offence u/ss 414, 419 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The defence of the petitioner is that the alleged stolen Bolero vehicle was under the transaction between one Mantu at Danapur and Hira Mahto at Siliguri in which the role of the petitioner was confined to be a driver for getting the vehicle at Danapur for its being taken to Siliguri for which Hira Mahto had also given a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the petitioner. Counsel would submit that in fact it was under the orders of the aforementioned Hira Mahto that he having collected the vehicle at Danapur had gone to the showroom at Muzaffarpur to get the papers verified allegedly handed to him by Mantu and when in course of such verification the same was found to be forged paper and consequently the vehicle in 2 question in possession of the petitioner to be stolen vehicle, he was unnecessarily booked in this case in place of either Mantu or Hira Mahto. Counsel would also submit that as a matter of fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent till the date of his being arrested in connection with the present case, inasmuch as only one case has been lodged against the petitioner only after his being made accused in this case by taking his remand by the police. In the opinion of this Court the aforesaid defence story could have at least inspired some confidence but for the dubious conduct of the petitioner himself. If the petitioner was only a driver and under the commands of his master Hira Mahto to collect vehicle at Patna for its driven to Siliguri there was no scope for the vehicle to be taken to a Showroom at Muzaffarpur for making enquiry about the authenticity of a second hand vehicle and correctness of its papers which were handed over to him by Mantoo at Danapur. In fact there would be no reason that the employees of such Showroom would come out with a false story that the 3 two persons including the petitioner had approached for verification of the second hand vehicle and its papers and one of them on being informed by the persons at the Showroom that the papers were forged and the vehicle itself was stolen, ran away saying that he was prepared to buy the same leaving the petitioner stranded and in fact caught at the spot with stolen vehicle and its forged papers. Thus the material collected in course of investigation would, therefore, raise a direct accusing finger towards the petitioner. The defence of the petitioner, therefore, that he was the driver of Hira Mahto of Siliguri or the vehicle was under the sale and purchase transaction of Mantu of Danapur and Hira Mahto are matter of further investigation and till the police would find any truth in the same the petitioner cannot escape his liability. That being so, this Court on the materials available on record is not inclined to direct the petitioner to be released on bail for the present but in event the police would find that the 4 petitioner was actually a driver of Hira Mahto and that the transaction for the vehicle was between Hira Mahto and Mantu he will be at liberty to move the court below for fresh consideration for his bail which then would be decided on its own merits by the court below without being prejudiced by this order rejecting his bail on the existing materials. As the case is one u/s 414 I.P.C. and triable by the Magistrate, this Court would also direct both the police and the trial court to ensure that the supplementary investigation/ consequential trial is completed within a period of one year from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/