IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35641 of 2009 Arjun Thakur S/o- Kishundeo Thakur, Resident of Vill- Bankat, P.S.- Barauli, Distt- Gopalganj ------------ Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ------------ Opp. Party ----------- 3 24.11.2009 Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for an offence under Sections 406/407/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code with an allegation that the truck in question in which the consignment of goods was sent by the informant through a transport company was found to be missing. The allegation against the petitioner, a cleaner as also the driver of the truck and in fact the owner of the truck is that they had purposely got the booked items of the informant made subject matter of theft in a clandestine manner. Mr. Verma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that during course of investigation, no material has been collected which would directly implicate the petitioner, the cleaner of the truck and 2 specially when the consignment which is said to have been recovered and made subject matter of Mahua Police Station P.S. Case No. 305 of 2009 would also go to show that there was hardly any complicity either of the driver or cleaner i.e. the petitioner, inasmuch as, both of them are said to have been subjected to some sort of physical threat in course of truck being intercepted by a gang of one Ajit Kumar Singh. It is true that when a consignment of truck was sent with the petitioner, as a cleaner, Milan Singh as a driver, if both of them were subjected to any such incident as is now made to appear in the confessional statement of the co-accused in Mahua Police Station P.S. Case No. 305 of 2009, the petitioner ought to have been immediately informed the police. Nothing is in the Case Diary to show that either the driver or the petitioner, a cleaner of the truck, had given any such information to the police but then that by itself may not be a compelling circumstance to infer direct complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence. 3 Thus, in that view of the matter, this Court in absence of any direct material at least against the petitioner, a cleaner, in the Case Diary, would direct for his being released on bail subject to the verification of the criminal antecedent. If the court below would find that the petitioner has a fair antecedent and no criminal case is pending against him, it would release the petitioner, namely, Arjun Thakur on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 120 of 2009, subject to the condition that one of the bailors would be either of the parents or the wife of the petitioner. It goes without saying that the petitioner must remain present in course of trial and his absence even for two consecutive dates would entail automatic consequence of cancellation of the present bail. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)