IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32939 of 2009 Anil Ram, Son of Mishri Ram, Resident of Village Brindawan, Mushanari, P.S. Ariari, District Shikhpura. --------- Petitoner Versus The State of Bihar ------- Opp. Party With Cr.Misc. No.35053 of 2009 Niwas Yadav, Son of Sri Bindeshwar Yadav, Resident of Village Kare, P.S. and District Sheikhpura. ------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ------ Opp. Party ----------- 2 6.10.2009 Heard counsel for the parties in both the cases. Two stolen motorcycles have been recovered including one from the house of the petitioner Niwas Yadav which is sought to be explained by his counsel that it was not a stolen motorcycle inasmuch as the co-accused who had made a confessional statement did not disclose its number. Counsel for the petitioner Anil Ram on the other with the other recovered motorcycle submits that the same was not even recovered from the house of Anil Ram and to that extent he has placed reliance on the seizure list as contained in Annexure-3. It is not in doubt that the two motorcycles were recovered and so far the 2 complicity of the petitioner Niwas Yadav is concerned, that gets support from the fact that Niwas Yadav could not or even till today has not produced any paper showing that he had purchased the motorcycle. Merely because the number plate was not there or that the confessional statement of co-accused did not contain the full description of the motorcycle recovered from the house of Niwas Yadav will not mean that the motorcycle which was recovered by the police from his house was not a stolen motorcycle. The moment the papers for such motorcycle were not produced, the presumption would be that it was a motorcycle which was not owned by the petitioner Niwas Yadav and thus a stolen motorcycle. So far the case of the petitioner Anil Ram is concerned, it is found that the search and seizure witness have not only stated about the recovery of a red colour Splendor motorcycle but have also stated that they have seen the petitioner Anil Ram regularly using it. Therefore, even if the confessional statement of the co-accused is given a discount, it will mean that Anil Ram on the 3 date of search and seizure had no paper to show that he could have owned a motorcycle. Counsel for the petitioner Anil Ram, in fact, having made enquiry from the Pairvikar present in the Court, has submitted that the motorcycle was bought only two months back in the family of Anil Ram and thus at the relevant point of time, there was no valid circumstances for Anil Ram to possess a motorcycle. There are thus strong circumstances to connect both the petitioners on the basis of recovered motorcycles giving support to the confessional statement of the co-accused. Counsel for both the petitioners, however, have placed reliance on an order granting bail to Om Prakash Mandal dated 20.4.2009 in Cr. Misc. No. 1226 of 2009 wherein he was granted bail after remaining in custody for almost six months. The case of the two petitioners is quite distinguishable to the aforementioned case of Om Prakash Mandal and therefore, the prayer for bail of both the petitioners for the time being is rejected. They may however renew 4 their prayer for bail after completing one year of their respective judicial custody. With the aforementioned observations and directions both the applications are dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)