IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12951 of 2010 MUNNA KUMAR YADAV @ MANISTER YADAV @ BARISTAR YADAV S/O MAHESH RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 19.7.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 364 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. By an order dated 5.10.2009 the petitioner was refused bail vide Cr.Misc.No.10733 of 2009 considering that the petitioner was the purchaser of the stolen truck, but the same fact was refuted and, therefore, the case diary was called for to verify the same. On going through the case diary the learned A.P.P. submits that there is material to show that in fact the khalasi of the truck, namely, Rama Shankar Sahni had hijacked the truck in question and sold the same to the petitioner’s father. At some point the genuine number of the truck was changed. The further fact that came to light is that the truck was recovered from the Hotel of one Gagandeo, who happens to be the brother-in-law of Mahesh Rai, father of the present petitioner, who stated that it was the father of the petitioner who had parked the truck near his Hotel from where it was recovered. There is no material to show that the petitioner was either the purchaser or in fact had knowledge that the truck was stolen one. The only material that has transpired against the petitioner is that he used to look after the truck but it is difficult to - 2 - infer from such fact that the petitioner was having knowledge that the truck was stolen from this fact alone. In view of such, let the petitioner above named, who is in custody since 23.10.2008 and there is no other case of similar nature pending against the petitioner, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) with three sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.D.J., Patna City in S.T.No.1140 of 2009 arising out of Agamkuan P.S.case No.230 of 2008, subject to the conditions (i) That one of the bailors shall be local since the petitioner belongs to East Champaran district and the second bailor shall be the wife/mother of the petitioner and the third bailor will be a close relative of the petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner. The bailor will undertake to furnish information to the court about any change in the address of the petitioner, (ii) that the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse, (iii) that the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if he fails to do so on two given dates and delays the trial in any manner, his bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse and (iv) that the petitioner will be well represented on each - 3 - date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled. The Magistrate concerned before releasing the petitioner on bail will verify the fact that the petitioner is not an accused in any other case of similar nature by calling for a report both from the Superintendent of Police, Patna as well as Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, where the petitioner resides. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )