IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.893 of 2008 SANJEEV KUMAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 25-09-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 5.8.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Beur PS case no. 105/2008 whereby and whereunder his prayer for release of seized articles other than Tata Sumo jeep bearing registration no. DL-3CF 5868 has been rejected. There is also prayer to slash the amount of bond to be executed by the petitioner in terms of the said impugned order for the release of vehicle in question. It is said that petitioner is a qualified engineer and has been running his business in computer and other electronic goods. He is also the owner of Sumo vehicle bearing registration no. DL-3CF 5868. On 9.5.2008 during the course of vehicle checking the Sumo jeep of the petitioner was intercepted and was searched by the police. At the time of search petitioner was not in the vehicle. Accused Amar Singh and driver were present in the vehicle. During the course of search three mobile phones, C.D., Laptop and cheque book etc. were seized from the vehicle. Seizure list was prepared. The driver and Amar Singh were arrested. The petitioner was called at the police station. It is said that he tried to impersonate as employee of Hutch company. The petitioner was also arrested and, accordingly, the present case was registered at the police station. Petitioner applied for release of seized - 2 - items before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna who by the impugned order dated 5.8.08 though released the vehicle in question but refused to release the other items. Against the said order the petitioner has preferred the present application before this court. The contention of the learned counsel is that petitioner is owner of the items seized in the case. The seized items are not stolen property. He is ready to furnish security for the release of seized items. His further contention is that amount fixed for the release of the jeep in question is quite excessive. The present case has been registered for the offences punishable u/ss 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 474, 201/34 of the IPC. There is nothing in the impugned order to show that seized articles are stolen properties. Some of the seized items are electronic items. These items are open to vagaries of nature when they are left uncared for. According to learned counsel no useful purpose would be served by keeping the items detained in the case for an indefinite period. It appears from the impugned order that the vehicle in question has been released in favour of the petitioner. The amount so fixed by the court below does not appear to be excessive. So far as other items are concerned, it is made clear that this court has not examined the papers of ownership of the those items and it will be for the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna to verify ownership papers of those seized items and he shall allow release of those items in favour of the petitioner only when he is satisfied that the petitioner’s claim for those articles is supported by legal documents. The release shall be - 3 - ad interim during the pendency of the criminal case on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna is directed to pass necessary order in respect of release of seized items within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the said direction, this application is allowed in part. BKS/ (M. Saran, J.)