IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35308 of 2009 AJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF HARI PRASAD SINGH, HOUSE OF GANGA DAYAL SINGH, ADARSH COLONY, P.O. KESHRI NAGAR, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT PATNA.- PETITOINER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SATYENDRA KUMAR SHAHI, SON OF LATE JANARDAN PRASAD, OFFICER INCHARGE, ARRAH, NAWADA POLICE STATION, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. – OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 6.1.2010 Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make correction in the Chassis Number at paragraph 10 of the petition. By order dated 1.4.2009, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna had released the Tata Sumo bearing registration no. BR-1AP- 1567. The release order was passed after considering the fact that the Court found that the certificate of registration showed that the petitioner was the owner and had paid one time tax. The police report was also received in this case and at that stage no objection whatsoever was filed by the D.T.O. or the police i.e. the Officer Incharge of the police station. When the petitioner went to get his Tata Sumo released, the Investigating Officer Arrah/Nawadah refused to release the Tata Sumo vehicle. A show cause notice was issued to the Officer Incharge by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arrah. The Officer Incharge filed a show cause vide annexure-4. In the said show cause the excuse given by the Officer Incharge is that the Chassis Number of the seized vehicle differs from the Chassis Number in the registered document. It is also said that the petitioner refused to co- operate with the investigation and disclose the name of the person to whom he had lent his vehicle during the election period. I find that the explanation given by the Officer Incharge 2 has been made to save his skin from contempt proceeding. If the Officer Incharge had found that the Chassis Number did not tally with the registration no. then he ought to have mentioned it in the police report filed earlier before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In any event, I find that the Court has not rejected the application for release on this ground, rather, it has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has refused to disclose the name of the person to whom he had lent his vehicle during the election period. I do not think that this is sufficient ground for cancellation of the release of the Tata Sumo vehicle. The Court ought not to take into consideration any and every explanation given by the Officer Incharge for not complying with the orders of this Court rather the explanation should be tested on merits. In fact the Chief Judicial Magistrate should have call for an explanation as to why the Officer Incharge had earlier filed a no- objection with respect to the release of the Tata Sumo instead of cancelling the order of release. In the circumstances, I direct that the Chief Judicial Magistrate will verify the document and release the Tata Sumo bearing registration no. BR-1AP-1567 which has been seized in Ara Nawadah P.S. Case No. 82 of 2009 in favour of the petitioner to his own satisfaction. This application is thus disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to communicate this order through FAX to the Court concerned. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)