Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.45092 of 2010 ====================================================== Malti Devi, wife of Ram Pravesh Sahni, resident of Mohalla- Bahari Dhawalpura, Police Station-By-Pass, District-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Pradeep Narayan Sah, son of Late Raj Narayan Sah, resident of Chamdoria, Quila Road, P.S.Chowk, District-Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ------------------ 5 05-10-2012 Heard Mr. Sajjid Salim Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Braj Kishore Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, who is the mother of one of the main accused in Patna City Chowk P.S.Case No.44 of 2010 initially registered for the offence under [STATUTE] and 27 of the Arms Act and subsequently Sections 396, 412 and120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code were added, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 07.10.2010 passed in Cr.Revion No.458 of 2010 by the learned Addl. Addl. District & Sessions Judge-14, Patna. By the said order, the learned revisional court has rejected the revision petition, which was preferred against order dated 31.05.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45092 of 2010 (5) dt.05-10-2012 2 / 5 2 Magistrate, Patna City. The learned Magistrate had rejected the petition filed under Section 457(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was filed with a prayer to release of Rs.2 Lacs cash, gold ornaments for an amount of Rs.40, 000/- and release of mobile phones of the applicant/petitioner and her other family members, which were seized at the time of raid conducted in the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amount of Rs. 2 Lacs was not the amount involved in the crime. He has further argued that total amount of Approx. Rs.25,000/-( twenty five thousand only) was alleged to be looted at the time of committing dacoity with murder. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer for release of cash amount of Rs.2 Lacs. On the aforesaid ground, he has prayed for setting aside both the orders and for directing release of the cash amount i.e. Rs.2 Lacs. Sri Braj Kishore Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that initially in the present case, F.I.R. was lodged for the offence under [STATUTE] and 27 of the Arms Act on the basis of fardbeyan of son of the deceased, which was recorded immediately after the death of father of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45092 of 2010 (5) dt.05-10-2012 3 / 5 3 informant. Immediately, thereafter, it was noticed that the father of the informant was in his Kirana shop and he was murdered in course of committing dacoity by unknown accused persons. During investigation, name of son of the petitioner transpired along with other accused persons and immediately thereafter a raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner, from where unexplained Rs.2 Lacs and five mobile phones were recovered and by preparing seizure memo , those articles were seized. The son of the petitioner was arrested. He made a disclosure statement that after committing the occurrence, he had gone near Mangal Talab, as agreed in between the accused persons and in fear he had thrown loaded pistol in Mangal Talab. On his disclosure, search was conducted and from Mangal Talab, a loaded pistol was recovered. He submits that the son of the petitioner was not involved only in this case, but it appears that he was involved in inter-state crimes. In one case of Dhanbad, he was also arrested earlier. According to learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the entire amount of Rs.2 Lacs , which was seized from the house of the petitioner, was looted amount and during investigation itself, a petition for release of amount along with so called ornaments and five mobile phones ,was filed. He submits that seizure memo was prepared in respect of cash amount of Rs.2 Lacs and five mobile Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45092 of 2010 (5) dt.05-10-2012 4 / 5 4 phones. During investigation, one mobile phone, which was in the name of the petitioner, was found not involved in the crime and same was directed to be released by the learned court below itself. In respect of other mobile phones, no paper was shown. He submits that the investigation was still continuing and seized articles are required to be exhibited during the trial as material exhibit. He submits that the learned court below has rightly rejected the prayer for release of the same and the said order has been confirmed by the revisional court. He further argued that once against the order of the learned Magistrate, revision was rejected , the petitioner was not entitled to file the present petition in the garb of a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which amounts to second revision and same is barred under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In sum and substance, it was argued that while passing impugned orders, the learned courts below have committed no error. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. In this case, by order dated 04.02.2011 case diary was summoned and original case diary has been received and is kept on record. After going through the materials on record, I do not find any defect in the impugned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45092 of 2010 (5) dt.05-10-2012 5 / 5 5 orders. The learned Magistrate has rejected the petition, while investigation was still continuing. Moreover, since it was a case for offence under [STATUTE] , in which cash amount was looted from Kirana Shop of the deceased, in all f

Applicable IPC Section: 396

Statute Text:
Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder in Dacoity. If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.