IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1073 of 2009 KAMLESH UPADHYAY, Son of Late Gopal Upadhyay, Resident of village – Nonar, P.S. – Piro, District - Bhojpur Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 11.2.2009 Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Dasrath Mehta, APP for the State. The brother of the petitioner, Akhilesh Upadhyay was named by Amit Kumar, who was arrested in a case under Section 392 of the IPC registered vide Piro P.S. Case No. 223 of 2008 as the person, who could be found in possession of the theft property. The house of the petitioner was searched by the police party in presence of the petitioner and his brother Akhilesh Upadhyay and besides, the motor cycle, a country made pistol of the description as per the FIR and seizure memo were recovered. The motor cycle was the subject matter of theft. The contention is that the petitioner had nothing to do with the theft property as may appear from the FIR itself and the same was said to be in possession of his brother Akhilesh Upadhyay. The second contention was that the house from which the recoveries were made was such place as not having doors or windows and probably some one - 2 - could have put the arms inside it. It is true that the petitioner may not have any hand in obtaining the possession of the theft property but he could not escape the knowledge that the property was obtained through theft. When the petitioner’s brother was such a dreaded criminal, naturally there could not have been any other reason for putting a door plank or widow plank as one could not dare to peep into it. The petition is dismissed. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)