IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.356 of 2009 SANDEEP KUMAR SINGH VS STATE & ORS. ----------- 2 11.05.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 23.1.2009, passed by the learned Sessions judge, Ara, in Sessions Trial No. 557 of 2008, whereby he has rejected the prayer to release the seized property in favour of the petitioner. The leaned trial court held that it would appear from the police report that the seized property belongs to the accused Jai Prakash Singh. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seized property belongs to him as his house and that of accused Jai Prakash Singh closed to each other. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court is of the view that it would appear from the impugned order that the local police had reported that the property can be released in favour of Jai Prakash Singh, if he files an application for release. After hearing the counsel for parties it is difficult to hold at this moment that the property belongs to the petitioner and the same be released in his favour. However, if Jai Prakash Singh files an application for release of the property in question in court below then the petitioner would also be noticed before an order for release of the property is passed. The petitioner would be also at liberty to file a fresh application. With the aforesaid observation this revision application is dismissed. Anilkr.sinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)