IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8791 of 2008 PANKAJ YADAV, son of Bishnudeo Yadav, resident of village – Pir Nagar, P.S. – Beldaur, District - Khagaria Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 7/ 05.02.2009 The show cause filed by the Officer Incharge, Sadar Police station, Saharsa is not only unsatisfactory but does not deserve even a notice from this court. The officer was directed to inspect the registration certificate in respect of the vehicle and to notify this court the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle because there was a dispute that the details of the seized vehicle did not tally with the description which could be available in the certificate of ownership. The officer did not appear complying with the directions and appears completely disobeying the directions of this court which fact is buttressed by the fact that he has, in order to justify his disobedience, annexed Annexure B to the show cause and that report relates to a motorcycle bearing number BR 10 C 0252 whereas the vehicle seized bears registration number BR 19A 9420 and the ownership contained the registration number, as may appear from the order passed by the Chief - 2 - Judicial Magistrate as also the bond executed by the owner of the vehicle pursuant to the order of release in his favour that the vehicle had been allotted the registration number BR 19A 9420. The chassis number was DUF BMH 45695 and it bore the engine number DUM BMH 06190. Thus, it appears a clear case of not only disobeying the order of this court but by annexing Annexure B to his show cause, he has tried to justify the act of disobedience. It appears that the officer has provided wrong information to a Judge of this court by filing annexures and specially Annexure B, which makes out an offence for which the police officer should be prosecuted. I direct the Registrar General of this court to file a complaint against Rajeshwar Singh, Officer Incharge, Sadar Police Station, Saharsa in the court of C.J.M., Saharsa. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa to be kept on the service record of the officer above named. Heard counsel for the parties on the point of prayer for bail. The informant while traveling on the road along - 3 - with some companions was intercepted by some criminals at the show of criminal force and dangerous weapons. The informant and his friend were relieved of their belongings including the motorcycle on which they were traveling. The informant gave the registration number of the vehicle and also pointed out the names of the present petitioner and other accused who had picked up after he had reached a particular chowk from shopkeepers there and that it was this petitioner and his companions who had, after committing the offence, come to that particular shop and had taken betel. Subsequently, the police found the petitioner riding the vehicle which was bearing a registration plate and on probe, the police officer came to know that it was the registration plate which was bearing a fake number and signs which could indicate that vehicle might be belonging to some police officer. The allegation came that the petitioner was using the vehicle under a fake registration number and ultimately, the police could realize the truth that real registration number which was indicated by the informant in the report related to the vehicle and thus, the - 4 - vehicle was seized from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed many submissions for consideration by this court including that the petitioner is suffering from some serious diseases which could be one of the many species carcinoma and it was urgently required that the petitioner was shifted to some higher expertise for his treatment. In support of the contention, the learned counsel has produced before me a letter addressed to the Magistrate at Saharsa from the Superintendent, District Jail, Saharsa. Besides, the contention was that other similarly situated named accused Sunil Yadav who was named in the FIR, has been admitted to bail and that the petitioner also filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate for his release on the ground of being afflicted with some serious ailment. The learned counsel touched upon the merit of the matter also and controverted that seizurelist contains different details indicating different chassis and engine number which was completely in conflict with the number given by the informant in the report and that it could give rise to an inference that informant’s vehicle was not one which was seized from the petitioner’s - 5 - possession. The contention on registration number simply misses the most import act alleged by the police that the petitioner was found using the vehicle after putting up a fake registration number and he had also put up a mark which had indicated that vehicle belonged to some police personnel. The investigation also revealed that the details of the vehicle were tallying with the details of the vehicle of which registration number BR 19A 9420 was allotted. As regards granting bail to co accused whose case was similar to the present petitioner, it was true that he was granted bail by the FTC II, Saharsa but the court has to distinguish the fact on the ground that the petitioner was found directly in the possession of the vehicle and the same was recovered while he was found sitting over it. Suffering from ailment could not be a ground for bail if an accused is alleged to have committed the crime. Petition is dismissed. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)