Shiv Shanker, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. It has been alleged that the applicant Gajjo was also arrested on 17.7.2008 by the police personnel. Thereafter, one motor cycle bearing No. U.P. 85-1490 was recovered from his possession. It was further stated that the motor cycle aforesaid was stolen from Kosikalan Station.
3. The applicant moved bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura which was rejected by Sri Vijay Verma, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No. Nil/08 u/s 41/102, Cr. P.C. and Section 411/414 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 41/102 is relating to suspected stolen property. It is not punishable offence. Sections 411 and 414 are relating to recovery of the stolen property. Sections 411 and 414 of the I.P.C. are reproduced below:
Section 411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.--Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 414. Assisting in concealment of stolen property.--Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or had reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
4. For the offences under Sections 411 and 414, I.P.C., it is essential that the suspected stolen property should be connected with any theft. There is no evidence that the recovered motor cycle was connected with any offence of theft. In such circumstances, without connecting stolen property from any theft, no offence was made out u/s 411/414, I.P.C. However, the concerned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application of the present applicant. The Additional Sessions Judge is a senior judicial officer and it is not expected that he does not know the provisions of law. Therefore, the bail application has been wrongly rejected by the concerned Sessions Judge which is against the provisions of law. It is experienced that the bail applications are being rejected by some Sessions Judges in such type of cases, consequently, the work load is increasing upon the High Court unnecessarily.
5. After considering the fact and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., the bail application of the present applicants is allowed.
6. Let applicant Gajjo involved in Case Crime No. Nil/2008 u/s 41/102, Cr. P.C. and Sections 411 and 414, I.P.C., P. S. Kosi Kalan, District Mathura be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
7. Copy of this order be sent to Administrative Judge, Mathura for perusal.
