IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41100 of 2008 RAM PRAVESH PD.YADAV @ RAM PRAVESH YADAV … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Tilaka Sao For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta,APP - - - - 2. 24.10.2008 Heard both the sides. The case is under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and the recovery of the Matuti Car was consequent upon the confessional statement of the petitioner which disclosed the details where the vehicle could be lying. Learned counsel for the petitioner place heavy reliance upon the provision of Section 436A of the Cr.P.C. to submit that the petitioner has already remained in custody from 2.2.2007 and has, thus, served out half of the imprisonment which could be inflicted upon him during the trial. If one considers the provision of Section 436A of the Cr.P.C., specially its first proviso, one could come to the conclusion that the provision is not mandatory and it remains in the realm of the discretion of the court as to granting or 2 refusing the prayer for bail. The proviso directs that the court may not release a person on bail as per the direction contained in the earlier part of the provision but on sufficient reasons being shown and may direct the continued detention of such an accused. The reason herein could be that the menace of vehicle theft could be making it very difficult for the owners of the vehicle to ensure the safety of their assets. Besides, it is some sort of an organized-gang-activity operating interstate and also cross the international border. Besides, the petitioner had the full and complete knowledge of the details of the offence committed indicating even the place of the vehicle being kept. This could be the reason for this Court not to act under Section 436 A of the Cr.P.C. and further not to direct the release of the petitioner on bail. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)