Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.43225 of 2011 ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar, Son of Dwarika Singh Yadav, Resident of village Madarichak, Police Station Makhdumpur, District Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR) 2 31-01-2012 Heard Shri Umesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ram Chandra Sahni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 20.9.2011 passed in Criminal Revision No.41 of 2011 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jehanabad, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner, which was filed against part of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Maigstrate, Jehanabad on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43225 of 2011 (2) dt.31-01-2012 2 15.3.2011 in Makhdumpur P.S. Case No.68 of 2011. By order dated 15.3.2011, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for release of seized motorcycle bearing Registration No.BR25A-5964, seized Mobile Phone and cash amount to the tune of Rs.1,940/-. On the said petition, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order for release of cash amount in favour of the wife of the petitioner, but he had refused to release the seized motorcycle as well as Mobile Phone of the petitioner. The case was registered for the offence under [STATUTE] and during investigation, petitioner was arrested, while he was moving on a motorcycle. After arresting the petitioner aforesaid motorcycle, one Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43225 of 2011 (2) dt.31-01-2012 3 Mobile and cash amount was seized. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure-3 to the petition, which is a communication made by the Officer-in- charge of the concerned police station to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, wherein the Officer-in- charge of Makhdumpur Police Station had mentioned that he had got no objection in release of the seized articles. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his argument, has relied on a judgment of the apex court reported in 2003(4) PLJR (SC)244 (Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat) and submits that if the seized motorcycle is not released, there is every likelihood of decay of the seized motorcycle and as such it would be appropriate to direct for release of the aforesaid seized Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43225 of 2011 (2) dt.31-01-2012 4 motorcycle. I have perused the materials available on record and heard learned counsel for the parties. Prima facie in view of Annexure-3 to the petition, the court is satisfied that there was no reason to refuse the prayer for release of the motorcycle. If the motorcycle is not directed to be released, there is every possibility that the seized motorcycle may be decayed and as such for the ends of justice, it is required to issue a direction to the court below to release the seized motorcycle bearing Registration No.BR25A-5964 after being fully satisfied that the seized motorcycle is not required to be identified in any other case as well as with the ownership and relevant document of the motorcycle in favour of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43225 of 2011 (2) dt.31-01-2012 5 petitioner. So far as release of seized cell phone is concerned, the court is of the opinion that no such order is required to be passed at the moment. With above observation and direction, the petition stands partly allowed. N.H./- (Rakesh Kumar, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 393

Statute Text:
Section 393 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to commit robbery. Whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.