IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38948 of 2008 SANJAY SHANKAR MISHRA @ CHHOTE MISHRA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 9.1.2009 Heard Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Mr. Dashrath Mehta, learned A.P.P. The case is under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and it relates to snatching of a motor-cycle by overtaking the informant by a similar another vehicle. The informant was gaged and his belongings, i.e., a cellular phone set and Rs.500/- were taken away along with the motor-cycle. The contention is that recovery of the motor-cycle from the petitioner is vague and it is said only to malign the present petitioner who hails from a respected family. It was contended that the witnesses were made to sign on the blank papers without being conveyed what would be the use of those papers. They subsequently filed affidavits so as to denying that they were the witnesses of search and seizure, as claimed by the petitioner. The Court does not outrightly reject the contention as has been noticed above but at the same time the Court could not reject the prosecution case merely because some witnesses presented a couple of facts denying their participation in witnessing search and seizure of the theft properties. Simply for the reason that the petitioner if at all a respectable person or a reasonable man ought to have pointed out to this Court as to why police could be so interested in roping him in a false case of such a serious - 2 - proportion. The petition is dismissed. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )