IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45830 of 2007 BHARAT BHUSHAN SON OF SHRI RAM KRIPAL DAS, AT + P.S. MANSOORCHAK, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI, AT PRESENT POSTED AS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BHAWANIPUR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT- PURNEA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL @ RAJESH AGRAWAL, S/O- OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL, R/O- BHAWAN DEVI ROAD, P.S.- BHAWANPUR, DISTRICT- PURNEA. For the petitioner :Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ram Chandra Singh, APP ----------- 4 25.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is informant. During the relevant time, he was deputed as the Officer-in-charge of Dhamdhaha Police Station when he seized a Scorpio vehicle bearing Registration mark and no. JH-07B/4863, Chasis no. MAITA 28DC32A7480. It is the prosecution case that no valid paper was shown by the accused from whose possession it was seized. Consequently an F.I.R. was lodged. The case of the opposite party is that the Scorpio vehicle originally owned by Harsvardhan Hansda of Gumla and the same was transferred in the name of the appellant by the D.T.O., Gumla. The first Court rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, O.P. no. 2 preferred revision being Cr. Rev. no. 214 of 2007 which has been allowed. Learned revisional court has observed as under in paragraph 6: “ Perused the record and call for original owner Book and duplicate owner Book in the name of the appellant, it appears that the in both the original Books, there are same chasis number and Engine 2 number and the said vehicle was sold by the original owner, namely, Harshbardhan Hansda, s/o- E.N. Hasda, Near Kali Mandir, Kachahari Road, Gumla (Jharkhand) and transferred in the name of appellant by the D.T.O. Dumka but during course of investigation, the police neither approached the original owner nor the D.T.O., Dumka regarding the alleged vehicle. From perusal of the case diary, it appears that there is no claimant of the vehicle except the appellant. The Hon’ble Apex Court of this country held that no use to keep seized vehicle at the Police Station 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 vehicle, if required at any point of time.” The person in whose favour, the vehicle is being released with certain condition(s) as per revisional order shall be the custodian of the vehicle. It shall be the legal duty of the O.P. to produce the vehicle as and when called upon by the Court. This Court finds that adequate conditions have been imposed by learned revisional Court in paragraph 7 of the revisional order as the terms on which the vehicle is to be released. In the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order. The application has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )