Patna High Court
Raju Thakur @ Abhay Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 26 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34686 of 2020
Arising Out of PS Case No.-314 Year-2019 Thana- CHAKIYA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Raju Thakur @ Abhay Kumar Sharma (Male) aged about 28 years, Gender-
Male, Son of Basisth Thakur, Resident of Village - Ismailpur, PS- Sadar
Hajipur, District - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Asif Kalim, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bharat Lal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 26-05-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Asif Kalim, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Bharat Lal, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.
3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with
Chakiya PS Case No. 314 of 2019 dated 13.09.2019, instituted
under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was
party to looting from Chakiya branch of Bandhan Bank of
Rs.10,94,094/-. The petitioner is said to have been identified by
the spy from the CCTV footage.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34686 of 2020 dt.26-05-2021
5. The matter was heard on 29.04.2021 and adjourned
when learned counsel for the petitioner had taken a stand that the
source of identification was not disclosed and on query of the
Court that whether he was prepared to submit himself for being
compared with the CCTV footage, he had asked for a day's
adjournment for taking instructions.
6. In view of such stand of learned counsel for the
petitioner on 29.04.2021, on 30.04.2021, learned counsel for the
petitioner had submitted that he was ready to appear before the
Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari and the
CCTV footage of the incident be compared with the miscreants,
who have been seen in the said CCTV footage.
7. The Court accepting such request, had directed for an
exercise to be conducted by the Superintendent of Police, East
Champaran, Motihari on 6th May, 2021 at 11:00 AM in his official
Chamber and had also given interim protection till his appearance
before the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari
and thereafter, if he was not identified he was directed to be
allowed to go whereas if he was identified in the CCTV footage,
he would be taken into custody.
8. Learned APP submitted that he has sent the report of
the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34686 of 2020 dt.26-05-2021
08.05.2021. Perusal of the same discloses that all arrangements
were made by the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran,
Motihari for completing the exercise and despite the team waiting
for the whole day, the petitioner had not turned up.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted
that he had taken the stand before the Court after taking specific
instructions from the petitioner and him not appearing before the
Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari on the date
fixed by the Court, he was also surprised at such conduct and
could not defend the same.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
from the CCTV footage annexed, the spy who had identified has
not been named, since the FIR was against unknown persons, but
the CCTV was not examined and there was no identification by
the local people and only by the spy. It was further submitted that
no CCTV footage is annexed in the case diary.
11. Learned APP submitted that there is no question of
putting any CCTV footage in the case diary because it is in digital
form and only in support of materials collected by the police
during investigation, the same are required to be submitted to the
Court. It was submitted that the moot question is that the
petitioner has been identified as one of the persons who had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34686 of 2020 dt.26-05-2021
committed the crime and it is immaterial as to who identified, as
the face of the petitioner in the CCTV can always be matched with
the actual face of the petitioner and if both tally, it is not relevant
as to who had identified because facts speaks of themselves and
under the Evidence Act also, facts and circumstances which
speaks for themselves need not be proved.
12. In the present case, it was submitted that the
petitioner himself having agreed to appear for being compared
with the CCTV footage, that too, after a day's indulgence being
given to learned counsel for the petitioner to seek specific
instructions whether he was agreeable to that and then not
appearing, also is a clear indication that the petitioner knows that
he was the person in the CCTV and would be easily identified. It
was submitted that had he not been present, there was no reason
for him not to appear as the Court had already granted him
protection that if he is not identified, he would be allowed to go.
13. At this juncture, the Court again called upon learned
counsel for the petitioner to take a stand as to why, when on
specific instructions after adjournment, he had agreed to
participate in the exercise but had not done so, learned counsel
said that he had no explanation and would also not approve of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34686 of 2020 dt.26-05-2021
such conduct when he had taken a stand before the Court only
after seeing specific instructions from the petitioner.
14. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
15. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
16. Interim protection given to the petitioner under order
dated 30.04.2021, stands withdrawn.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T
