IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.14909 OF 2009 WITH BIRENDRA TIWARY CR.MISC. NO.17914 OF 2009 WITH MD.RAHMAN CR.MISC. NO.18896 OF 2009 SHESHNATH PRASAD @ SHASHI VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 13.07.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. Petitioners are accused in a case registered for offence under sections 467, 468,414,420 of the penal code. The informant alleged that a stolen Scorpio vehicle was standing near Ragendra nagar roundabout, as such, he along with other police personnel raided the vehicle and apprehended its two inmates who disclosed their names as Md Rahman and Birender Tiwary, both of whom are petitioners here. In course of search, the informant seized various incriminating articles from the vehicle. On enquiry, the aforesaid two persons stated that the vehicle was handed over to them by Seshnath alias Shashi Prasad for being taken to Assam. They stated that earlier also aforesaid Sheshnath Prasad had given them stolen cars to be carried to Bengal and other places. On further query Birendra Tiwary stated that earlier also he had gone to jail in case of theft of vehicles. The petitioner Md. Rahman stated that he is a mere driver and in order to earn his livelihood he had to carry stolen vehicle to Assam. It has been submitted that he does not have any criminal antecedent. - 2 - Let the petitioner Md. Rahman be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5000/-(five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Kadamkuan Police Station case no. 398 of 2008. So far as the petitioner Birendra Tiwary is concerned, it appears that he has criminal antecedent. It would appear from the FIR itself that he had confessed earlier that he also used to aid Seshnath Prasad in transporting the stolen vehicle. In the aforesaid circumstances, his prayer for bail is refused with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after three months. So far as petitioner Shehnath Prasad is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he was not apprehended at the spot and his name figured in the confessional statement of co accused. As such, he may be allowed the privilege of bail. It would appear from the FIR as well as the confessional statement of both co accused Md Rahman and Birendra Tiwary that there is allegation that this petitioner indulged in transportation of stolen vehicle in the past also. It has also been confessed by aforesaid two persons that it was he who had handed over the stolen vehicle to them for being carried to Assam. It would further appear from para 66 of the case diary that the Company had also informed that no vehicle in question had been manufactured by it, having the engine number and chassis number appearing on it. It further transpired in para 62 of the case diary that the aforesaid vehicle was stolen vehicle of Kasarbarbali police station case no. I -190/08 District Thane, Maharashtra lodged - 3 - under sections 379/411. In view of the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to allow bail to the petitioner Sheshnath Prasad, as such, his prayer for bail is refused with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after three months. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J).