IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.78 of 2010 SHYAM SUNDAR SINGH, son of late Laxman Singh, resident of village- Bairi Tola Parasiya, Police Station-Chand, District- Kaimur. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Superintendent of Police, Kaimur at Bhabua. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaimur at Bhabua 4. Officer-in-charge of Bhabua Police Station, Bhabhua. 5. Sanjay Kumar, son of Shivnath Sah, the partner of Shiv Mangal Traders, G.T. Road, Mohania, Police Station- Mohania, District- Kaimur, at present Ward no.1, Bhabhua, Police Station- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur. 6. Mangal Tiwari, son of late Gupteshwar Tiwari, resident of village- Bhabhua, Ward no.20, Police Station- Bhabhuya, District- Kaimur. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 6/ 15.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant application, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 02.12.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhabua in Bhabhua P.S. case no. 144 of 2006, giving rise to G.R. No. 516 of 2006, whereby he refused to release the Tractor of the petitioner, bearing registration no. BR 45 9846. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his tractor was seized illegally by respondent nos. 5 and 6, which forced him to file Complaint case no. 370 of 2006 on 02.05.2006, which was sent to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation, giving rise to Bhabhua P.S. case no. 144 of 2006, dated 11.05.2006 under Sections 341, 347, 382, 384, 386 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that after full payment to the Shiv Mangal Traders and Escort Finance Limited, the vehicle was handed over to him. Thereafter he got the registration of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it would appear from Annexure-5 as - 2 - well as from the impugned order of the learned Magistrate that he had made all the payment. He further submits that the aforesaid vehicle is now under the police custody. He further submits that the vehicle ought to have been released in his favour. In spite of valid notices to respondent nos. 5 and 6, namely Sanjay Kumar, Partner of Shiv Mangal Traders and one Magal Tiwari, no one appeared. Counsel for the State submits that the learned Magistrate has rejected the application for release of the tractor, as the petitioner had not made Escort Finance Limited as party before the learned Magistrate. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate ought to have asked the petitioner to add Escort Finance Limited, as the respondent, instead of rejecting the application on that ground. In the circumstances, the impugned order, rejecting the application for release of the vehicle dated 02.12.2009, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bhabua in Bhabhua P.S. case no. 144 of 2006 giving rise to G.R. No. 516 of 2006, is set aside and matter is remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law. This Court further observes that the court would permit the petitioner to add Escort Finance Limited as party respondent and the trial court in seisin of the case issue fresh notice to both respondent nos. 5 and 6 namely Sanjay Kumar, partner of Shiv Mangal Traders as well as Mangal Tiwari and Escort Finance Limited. The petitioner will - 3 - submit the complete address of the Escort Finance Limited before the learned Magistrate, as the matter relates to release of a vehicle, as such in view of the decision rendered in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in A.I.R. 2003 SC 638, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the release petition of the vehicle within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, pending final hearing of the matter. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with aforesaid direction. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)