IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42276 of 2009 ACHAY LAL SAH @ ACHCHHE LAL SAH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 23.12.2009 Heard. The earlier order was passed in absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I must note that industry of learned counsel for the petitioner has complemented the loss of his presence at the earlier hearing. The case is that a truck full of consignment of lubricating oil went missing along with the driver and cleaner of the truck besides the vehicle. A case was registered by the owner of the vehicle carrying the consignment noted above and, lastly, the truck was found abandoned. The consignment in its part, to be precise, 170 drums of oil was recovered from a place which was belonging to the present petitioner, as per the seizure memo. The contention is that it could not be a case under section 364 IPC and, as regards recovery of the consignment, some similarly situated accused persons, like, Achchelal, Pramod Singh and Naresh Ram have been admitted to bail. One such order has been annexed as Annexure 3 and I had the occasion to peruse it which indicates that 60 drums of lubricating oil was recovered from the house of co accused Brajesh Singh and he was ordered to be released on bail if he did not have any criminal history. Order dated 26.9.2006 of the lower court indicates that accused Brajesh Singh had no criminal antecedent. As regards Naresh Ram, the recovery was of different petroleum product - 2 - contained in sixty cartons, thus, there was no recovery of drums of lubricating oil and, as such, he was admitted to bail. As has been noticed above, the truck was taken away. The driver and cleaner were made to disappear. If this could not be a case under section 364 and other sections of the IPC under which the FIR was registered, there could be none. I do not see any good ground in reviewing my earlier order. The petition is dismissed. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)