Md. Javed vs The State of Bihar

Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Allegedly, the petitioner being the driver of the informant parked his Bolero vehicle D.I. No. BR-020-3470 at the rented house of the informant at about 8 P.M. on 7.2.2014 and in the morning the petitioner came at the residence and asked the key of the vehicle by informing that the said vehicle was not there, then the family members of the informant came out of the house and did not find the vehicle but on enquiry nearby persons informed that the petitioner took away the vehicle at about 9.30 P.M. on 7.12.2014 itself and during investigation this fact finds support in para 17 of the case diary, which is evident from para 6 of the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the privilege of pre-arrest bail of the petitioner placing his innocence, false implication by submitting that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. In fact some wages was due with the informant and when the petitioner demanded his wages he has been implicated in this false case. Further the said vehicle was insured in favour of the petitioner and the informant is an agent of insurance company. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner. Considering the fact, as stated in the FIR and also the materials collected during investigation as pointed out in the impugned order vide paras 7 and 17 of the case diary, this Court is also of the view that the petitioner does not deserve pre-arrest bail and accordingly his prayer stands rejected.

However, in case the petitioner, if so advised, surrenders in the court below within one month and seeks regular bail by raising all points, which may be considered on the same day in right perspective without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.