IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17687 of 2011 Hareram Singh son of late B.N.P. Singh, 1 Sector 2 A, Bokaro Steel City, P.O.-Bokaro, District-Bokaro, State-Jharkhand. ........Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar. ........Opposite Party ----------- 02 16.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner Hareram Singh has challenged successive order passed by Sri Rajiv Ranjan Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai dated 29.10.2010 passed in Case No. 44C2 of 2009 (State Vrs. Sanjay Paswan) as well as order dated 27th January, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fact Track Court-II, Begusarai in Criminal Revision No. 331 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner to release truck bearing registration no. BR 16G-2006 has been rejected. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner happens to be owner of the truck, the owner book stood in his name, insurance, road permit and tax token happens to be in his name but on account of typographical error, committed at the end of D.T.O., Jamshedpur, some discrepancy crept in and that 2 let refusal of the prayer. Then submitted that the learned lower Court should have verified the same by asking another report. Also submitted that no other claimant came forward. Also referred the direction given by the Hon’ble Apex Court as happens to be reported in 2003 (4) P.L.J.R. SC 244 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vrs. State of Gujarat) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that on account of discrepancy more particularly relating to chassis number indicates some sort of foul play, whereupon the learned lower Court has rightly rejected the prayer for release. Also submitted that in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the direction laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is not at all applicable. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision (supra) at para 17 had directed that “In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep 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 3 required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.”. It looks pertinent to mention the fact that the vehicle in question is seized by the Enforcement Officer while plying on road in overload condition. Therefore, taking into account the nature of offence in consonance with the direction given by the Hon’ble Apex Court the successive order passed by the courts below is quashed. The learned lower Court is directed to release the truck bearing registration no. BR 16G-2006 in favour of petitioner after verifying the genuineness of the document as well as being satisfied that only the petitioner happens to be the owner of the truck bearing particular chassis number, engine number on a bank guarantee of Rs. 9,000,00/- (nine lakhs) with a further undertaking at the end of petitioner that till continuance of proceeding, he will not change the ownership as well as will produce the vehicle whenever and where ever required by the Court. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Safik (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)