IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8158 of 2011 Babita Pandey & Anr. Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 2/ 16th September 2011 Heard the parties. Petitioners, Babita Pandey and Moti Prasad have filed the instant petition against an order dated 03.02.2011 passed by ADJ, FTC-II, Madhubani in connection with Sessions Trial No. 107 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioners have been rejected so far release of Indica Car bearing registration no. UP-16K-9771 as well as Scorpio bearing registration no. NL-04-B-0468 are concerned. The main ground over which prayer has been rejected happens to be discrepancy in the Engine No. as detected which has been controverted by the petitioners by filing supplementary affidavit. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner Babita Pandey wife of Rama Shankar Roy (an accused) happens to be the owner of Indica car bearing registration no. UP-16K-9771 which she had purchased second hand from one Md. Halim but 2 as till date of seizure was not transferred in her name, therefore, being seized while plying on road by her husband. Subsequently, the owner book stood transferred in the name of petitioner. With regard to vehicle, Scorpio bearing registration no. NL-04-B-0468, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner, Moti Prasad that it happens to be in his name. Out of some confusion the aforesaid vehicle has been seized. So submitted that the finding of the lower court while refusing the prayer of the petitioners happen to be contrary to the factual as well as legal aspect and accordingly is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned APP opposed the prayer and submitted that the accused persons happen to be habitual vehicle thieves who themselves confessed the guilt. The subsequent event cannot be taken into consideration because of the fact that on the alleged date of occurrence the vehicle did not stand in name of Babita Pandey. With regard to petitioner no.2 it has been submitted that he was not driving the vehicle and how the vehicle has come up at the relevant place, has not been explained at his end. 3 Be that as it may, in a decision reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 at paragraph-17 it has been held by the Apex Court which is follows:- “ In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles”. Therefore, taking into account the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, both the vehicles bearing registration no.UP-16K-9771 as well as NL-04-B-0468 are directed to be released in favour of the petitioners respectively subjected to the condition that the learned lower court will verify and satisfy himself on the factum of genuineness of the document having in favour of respective petitioners regarding their entitlement and further having an undertaking that till pendency of criminal case, the ownership of vehicle will not be transferred, the vehicle will be produced before the court whenever and wherever required by the court on bank guarantee of 4 lacs so far as car (Indica) bearing No.UP- 16K-9771 is concerned and bank guarantee of Rs.6 lacs 4 so far Scorpio bearing registration no. NL-04-B-0468 is concerned. As such, the order impugned is quashed. Consequent thereupon, the petition is allowed. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)