Man accused of theft denied pre-arrest bail after the Vehicle was found in his Courtyard: High Court Of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.151721 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 716 Year 2020 Thana BHAGALPUR KOTWALI District Vikash Kumar Choudhary @ Vikash Choudhary aged about 30 years Male Son of Madan Choudhary Resident of Village Mayaganj mushari Tola P.S. Barari Distt. Bhagalpur The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha Advocate Ms. Meena Singh APP Date : 05 08 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioner on 29.07.2021 which was allowed 3. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Meena Singh learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with KotwaliPS Case No. 7120 dated 19.11.2020 instituted under Sections 379 411 of the Indian Penal Code 5. As per the informant his motorcycle was stolen during night for which the present case has been instituted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.151721 dt.05 08 2021 However it is not against any named person and during investigation co accused Chandan Kumar Yadav @ Golu Yadav was arrested by the police and he disclosed that the stolen motorcycle was kept by him at the house of the petitioner and thereafter when the police has gone to the house of the petitioner from his courtyard motorcycle was recovered 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though from the circumstances it appears that there is recovery of stolen motorcycle from the courtyard of the petitioner but from the seizure list there being no signature of any inmate of the house raises serious doubts with regard to authenticity of the allegation of such recovery from the house of the petitioner. It was submitted that only the said co accused Chandan Kumar Yadav @ Golu Yadav has signed on the seizure list. He submitted that the petitioner has got no other criminal antecedent 7. Learned APP submitted that during investigation from the CCTV footage two miscreants were seen committing theft and one has been identified as Chandan Kumar Yadav Golu Yadav by the local person Sonu Kumar and he was apprehended. Learned counsel submitted that once the co accused had gone with the police and recovery has been made and he has signed on the seizure list the requirement of any other signature of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.151721 dt.05 08 2021 the inmates of the house cannot be fatal to the prosecution and all such matters are to be left at the stage of trial where evidence would be adduced by the respective parties but for the present there is strong presumption of guilt and involvement of the petitioner in committing the crime 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP. Thus the Court is not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner 9. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner was apprehended arrest for the theft of motorcycle along with one other. The Motorcycle was found in the courtyard of the petitioner and he claimed that he had nothing to do with it. The court in the light of all facts and circumstances dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail. The court was inclined towards the contention that the accused is liable of theft and the case shall go on. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Vikash Kumar Choudhary v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No.15176 of 2021].  
The facts of the case were that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the Case instituted under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the case the informant’s motorcycle was stolen during night for which the present case has been instituted. The co-accused was the person who stole the motorcycle at the night and ran away with it. To be safe the motorcycle was kept at petitioner’s house and thereafter when the police has gone to the house of the petitioner, from his courtyard, motorcycle was recovered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though from the circumstances, it appears that there is recovery of stolen motorcycle from the courtyard of the petitioner but from the seizure list, there being no signature of any inmate of the house, raises serious doubts with regard to authenticity of the allegation of such recovery from the house of the petitioner. They said that the petitioner had no other criminal antecedent. Also the seizure list contained the signature of the co-accused only.
The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the CCTV Footage contained two people and one was identified as the co-accused and he was apprehended for the same as well. They contended that the case is at the stage of trial where evidence would be adduced by the respective parties, but for the present, there is strong presumption of guilt and involvement of the petitioner in committing the crime.
The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP. Thus, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.” The petition was hence dismissed on the said decision.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The facts of the case were that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the Case instituted under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the case the informant’s motorcycle was stolen during night for which the present case has been instituted. The co-accused was the person who stole the motorcycle at the night and ran away with it. To be safe the motorcycle was kept at petitioner’s house and thereafter when the police has gone to the house of the petitioner, from his courtyard, motorcycle was recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though from the circumstances, it appears that there is recovery of stolen motorcycle from the courtyard of the petitioner but from the seizure list, there being no signature of any inmate of the house, raises serious doubts with regard to authenticity of the allegation of such recovery from the house of the petitioner. They said that the petitioner had no other criminal antecedent. Also the seizure list contained the signature of the co-accused only. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the CCTV Footage contained two people and one was identified as the co-accused and he was apprehended for the same as well. They contended that the case is at the stage of trial where evidence would be adduced by the respective parties, but for the present, there is strong presumption of guilt and involvement of the petitioner in committing the crime. The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP. Thus, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.” The petition was hence dismissed on the said decision.