Allowed

Rizwan Alam v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC10 Dec 2018CR. MISC./57951/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous application filed by Rizwan Alam apprehending arrest in a criminal case alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust. The High Court granted anticipatory bail upon specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, to appear in Police Case No. 211 of 2017.

Rizwan Alam Vs The State Of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.57951 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2017 Thana- MOHIUDDIN NAGAR DistrictSamastipur

¶3

====================================================== Rizwan Alam S/o Mansur Alam, resident of Village- Madarpur- Jalalpur, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Siwan.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganesh Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmeshwar Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶6

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶7

Date : 10-12-2018

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. Learned counsel for the informant, who has suo motu appeared, has also been heard.

¶9

The petitioner apprehends arrest in Mohiuddinnagar P.S. Case No. 211 of 2017 instituted under Sections 406/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

The allegation against the petitioner, who is the owner of a truck, bearing Registration No. WB53A-4247, is that the informant had given 160 quintals of rice for being taken from the district of Samastipur to West Bengal and on the way, the rice was sold and the truck was found somewhere in Samastipur, which was empty. It was further stated that the value of the rice

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57951 of 2018 dt.10-12-2018 2/4

¶12

was Rs. 3,36,800/- and that Rs. 17,000/- advance was also given to the driver and the attendant ( Khalasi ).

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is the owner of the vehicle and was totally unaware of the deal between the informant and the driver and attendant of the truck and, thus, he is not responsible for any alleged loss caused. It was further submitted that the case being lodged at Samastipur without there being any seizure list, the petitioner has also filed CR.W.J.C. No. 1117 of 2018, in which the Court has issued notice to the Investigating Officer of the case. Further, it was submitted that nowhere it is alleged that the informant had any direct dealing with the petitioner.

¶14

Learned A.P.P. fairly submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the truck and beyond that, there is no allegation.

¶15

Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the petitioner, being the owner, was the person who had negotiated the deal and in his presence, the informant had got the rice loaded in the truck. On a direct query of the Court as to why such facts were not narrated in the fardbeyan and not only this, the facts narrated are totally contrary, inasmuch as, it has been stated that it was the driver and the attendant in whose presence the rice was loaded and there is no mentioning of the owner, learned counsel had no reply.

¶16

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57951 of 2018 dt.10-12-2018 3/4

¶17

However, learned counsel further submitted that the informant was told that because the truck had come from West Bengal to deliver some goods and was returning empty, a good deal was given for carrying rice due to which the informant had agreed to send the rice through the truck.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of such fact, it is all the more clear that the petitioner, being the owner, was never aware of such transaction as it is well known that it is the driver and the attendant locally, who try to make for themselves some money from transportation where the truck otherwise would have returned empty. It was further submitted that had the deal been negotiated with the owner i.e., the petitioner, the rate would have been comparably at the prevailing rate and not such discounted rate, which further goes to show that the driver and attendant, who at best, can said to have acted dishonestly in transportation of rice of the informant. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

¶20

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57951 of 2018 dt.10-12-2018 4/4

¶21

each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in Mohiuddinnagar P.S. Case No. 211 of 2017, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶22

P. Kumar

¶23

AFR/NAFR U T

Rizwan Alam v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rizwan Alam v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar Nirala Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Devendra Nath Mishra Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Chandar Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Musafir Ram and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ravindra Rai @ Ravindra Ray Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Umesh Singh @ Umesh Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar