IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7483 of 2008 BALWANT SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 07.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and counsel for the Complainant who appears suo motu. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although he is the owner of the M/S India Road Lines under which the truck in question runs, however, petitioner has no concern with the loading and transport of the goods in question and therefore he has been implicated in this case without any reasonable justification. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as the State submits that on perusal of the allegation made in the complaint it would appear that the goods were loaded in the truck in question which runs under the transport company of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the goods were loaded on the truck on assurance being given by this petitioner to the effect that the goods shall remain secured. Learned Additional P.P. on perusal of the diary submits that the material has come during investigation that the goods in question was sought to be sold at Delhi with different persons who refused to purchase. As such, submissions is that the application for anticipatory bail deserve to be rejected. Considering the submission of the parties and the allegation made in the complaint, as well as the materials brought on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Jagdish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)