IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28940 of 2009 Amar Nath Yadav, Son of Bashisht Yadav @ Bashagit Singh, Resident of Village Ishamailpur, P.S. Mohaniya, District Kaimur. --------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar -------- Opp. Party ----------- 4 26.11.2009 The petitioner, facing prosecution for an offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, would seek bail from this Court by taking a plea that the entire seizure list is vitiated on account of the fact that the copy of the seizure list was not handed over to any family inmates in absence of the petitioner and that his implication comes only by way of confessional statement of the co-accused Sandeep Patwa. Learned counsel for the petitioner in fact has also tried to make a valiant effort to explain that the petitioner even though made accused in nine criminal cases is a very simple person and has been unnecessarily framed by the police in the same fashion without there being any legal evidence against him. In the opinion of this Court, what would really go against the petitioner at least for the purposes of bail would be recovery of two motorcycles as shown in the seizure list for 2 which neither the petitioner nor his mother nor even his sister had any valid paper. The lady inmates present in the house and the recovery being made in presence of two independent villagers, namely, Anil Singh and Shambhu Chaudhary, who have stood firm with regard to the search and seizure in their respective statement as recorded in the Case Diary, cannot be brushed aside only because the copy of the seizure list was not handed over by the police to the family inmates. On this ground, no seizure list can ever be held to be vitiated, inasmuch as, there are a number of instances of avoiding either service of such seizure list or at least not accepting the same by the accused in order to create an evidence for oneself. That being so, when this Court has got the history sheet of the petitioner showing his implication at least in nine criminal cases and there is also recovery of two motorcycles from his house about which the petitioner does not claim that they belong to either his mother or sister or to him, that by itself would give a clear impression that it was the petitioner who was in possession of those motorcycles. The rampant theft of 3 motorcycle has become an order of the day and therefore, merely because the petitioner is in custody since 13.4.2009 will not be a good and valid ground for his being released on bail. That being so, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Amar Nath Yadav is hereby rejected. The trial court is directed to ensure that the trial of the petitioner is expedited and completed within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event such trial of the petitioner will not be completed within the aforementioned period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the petitioner will have liberty to initially move trial court which then would record reasons for not completing the trial within the aforementioned period and only thereafter, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)