IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30798 of 2009 Jay Krishna Yadav, resident of village Saptiyahi, P.S. SUNIL KUMAR YADAV @ SUNIL YADAV, son of Jay Kishun @ Sadar Saharsa, District Saharsa Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 7.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused for offence u/ss 392/411 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner having been not named in the F.I.R. his complicity on the basis of his own alleged confessional statement, being no evidence in the eye of law, would hardly be a ground for keeping him in custody, inasmuch as the petitioner apart from this case is accused only in one case for an offence under the Arms Act and in fact was remanded from that case to the present case. This Court had called for the case diary from which it transpires that the petitioner was not remanded in this case from the aforesaid Arms Act case, rather he was apprehended by the police on 13th August, 2008 at a police outpost in a suspicious 2 condition with a motorcycle and 25,000/- rupees in cash as also two mobile phones. On this the police had made interrogation and the petitioner in course of such interrogation while making a confessional statement could not give any explanation for the recovered motorcycle or cash worth Rs. 25,000/-. On the other hand, he has gone to accept his complicity not only in the theft of the motorcycle recovered from his possession but also motorcycle in question which was stolen on 6th of August, 2008 leading to filing of the present First Information Report. Thus over insistence on the part of the counsel for the petitioner on a fact that the subject matter of theft of that incident dated 6th of August, 2008 having been not recovered from his conscious possession, the petitioner cannot be held to be guilty for offence u/s 411 I.P.C. in this case has only to be noted for its being rejected. Here it is a case of a number of persons including the petitioner working in tandem for committing theft of motorcycle on a regular basis. One of such motorcycle has 3 been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and even thereafter the petitioner has not given any explanation as with regard to possession of that motorcycle in question which was recovered from his possession. In that view of the matter, this Court will have to presume that the recovery made by the police leading to his confessional statement of a stolen motorcycle, Rs. 25,000/- in cash and two mobiles were not actually owned and possessed by the petitioner in his own rights. In such a situation the confessional statement of the petitioner before the police regarding his complicity in the present case, by way of an inculpatory statement, can very well be admissible in evidence. The plea of the petitioner that he has got no criminal antecedent except a case of Arms Act will again by itself can not be good enough for release of the petitioner on bail in this case taking into account that such nature of case regarding theft and looting of motorcycle by use of force has become rampant in these days and therefore, 4 this Court would refuse to give such privilege of bail to the petitioner once he has been found with one of such stolen motorcycle whereafter he has also admitted his involvement also in the theft of motorcycle involved in this case. That being so, this Court would reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner with an observation that the trial court may expedite the trial pending against him and other co-accused persons. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/