RAMJI MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

(2.) The petitioner has been apprehending his arrest in C-l case No. 371 of 2009 of 2010 registered under Sections 420/467/468/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one Sahabuddin Khan while was going on a Motor Cycle along with his wife, who was a pillion rider, it met with an accident with a Motor Cycle, as a result of which, his wife fell down and succumbed to her injuries. On the said allegation, first information report was lodged and then investigation of the case was entrusted to this petitioner. In course of investigation, when information was received that Motor Cycle by which accident had been caused is parked at a place, it was seized and then same was sent before the Motor Vehicle Inspector for its inspection. Upon inspecting the same, Motor Vehicle Inspector submitted a report. Thereupon it could be learnt that the complainant is the owner, who had given the Motor Cycle to one Ravi Rai and while he was driving the Motor Cycle, it met with an accident with the Motor Cycle of the complainant. In course of investigation, the complainant also appeared before the petitioner and submitted an affidavit stating the fact that the Motor Cycle was being driven by Ravi Rai at the relevant point of time. Thereafter the Motor Cycle was given on jimmanama to this complainant, who subsequently filed a complaint alleging therein that the Motor Cycle which belongs to him never met with an accident and that it was never seized by the police nor the same was taken by the petitioner on jimmanama and that many facts have been wrongly recorded in the case diary which has been purposely done to put to the complainant to injury and loss and on such complaint, cognizance was taken and therefore, the petitioner has moved for anticipatory bail as anything done by the petitioner in course of investigation, was done in good faith and as such, such act cannot be a subject matter of the prosecution.