IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2196 of 2010 PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA, son of Late Jamuna Prasad, Mohalla Mohaddi Nagar (Amber), PS Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda – petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THU. VIG. ----------- 3 16.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 8.12.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap), Patna in Special Case No. 21/2009, arising out of Patna Vigilance PS Case No. 41/2009 by which the court has refused to release the Bolero Jeep bearing registration No. BR-21C-6300 which was purchased by the petitioner from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Limited, Patna at an instalment of rs.19,401/-. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration number and the bank account statement would indicate that the petitioner’s jeep is hypothecated to the bank from where the petitioner had applied for loan of about Rs.4 lakhs. The original documents were seized with the jeep itself. Photo stat copy of the documents have been annexed with this application. The grounds for refusal for release of the jeep is that it is alleged that the accused person is brother of the petitioner and the jeep was found in the premises of the accused. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has good relationship with his brother and merely because his jeep was parked in the house of his brother, it cannot be 2 presumed that, in any way, the petitioner was responsible for any of the acts committed by the brother. Moreover, the petitioner further submits that he is not accused in the case and that he has proper account which will show that the jeep was not purchased from ill begotten money. Be that as it may, the Bolero jeep seized by the Vigilance Department is directed to be released in favour of the petitioner along with the original documents to the satisfaction of the Special Judge Vigilance, Patna in Special Case No.21/2009 arising out of Vigilance PS Case No. 41/2009. This application is allowed. It is made clear that the seizure list will remain as a piece of evidence in case it is required during the trial. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)