IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45738 of 2009 MANI KANT MANISH, S/O- BINDA SINGH, RESIDENT OF 19, R.N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700001. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH, S/O- SAKALDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF SHIVPURI COLONY, P.S.- MUFASSIL, DISTRICT-GAYA. For the petitioner : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate. For O.P. no. 2 : Mr. R.R. Tiwari, Advocate. ----------- 3 28.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for O.P. no. 2. No body has appeared on behalf of the State. Let it be recorded that this matter was taken up on Friday (25.06.2010) also but owning to non-appearance of the counsel representing the state, the matter was adjourned to be heard today. Petitioner, who is the Receiver agent duly appointed by the Advocate Receiver under the order of the VIIth Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta in Miscellaneous Case no. 5012 of 2009 (Zenith Credit Ltd. versus Pawan Kumar Singh) (Annexure-2), assails the order dated 11.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Gaya in S.T. no. 175 of 2009 whereby the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for release of ALTO car bearing registration no. BR-2E/5628 has been considered and rejected on the grounds/reasonings as under: “It is clear from the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the Calcutta City Court has not passed an order for release of the aforesaid vehicle which is an evidence in this case rather it has only advised the master of the petitioner to take steps for its release. Further more the case law filed on behalf of this petitioner is differenciable from the circumstances of this case and does not hold good in this case. The aforesaid car is an important evidence in this case and this petition appears to be an endevour to remove the evidence of this case, so that 2 it could not be produced as an evidence during the trial. For the aforesaid reasons this application of petitioner Manikant Manish is hereby rejected.” Relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the case may be indicated. Opposite party no. 2 herein had obtained the aforesaid vehicle on Hire Purchase agreement dated 9.6.2005 executed by and between opposite party no. 2 and the aforesaid Zenith Credit Ltd. Admittedly the petitioner defaulted in making payment of the installments as contemplated thereunder. That promoted the company to file the aforesaid civil litigation before the Calcutta Court. As indicated in this order, on the application of the company, learned Civil Judge appointed Sri Dipak Kumar Das as Advocate Receiver for the purpose of taking over possession of the aforesaid vehicle. The Receiver was also authorised to take all possible steps including appointment of an agent and also to take police help if at all necessary. He/she was directed to submit his/her report by the next date. It appears from the documents placed on record that the petitioner herein was appointed as the Receiver agent by the Advocate Receiver so appointed by the Court. It further appears from the record that the aforesaid vehicle was seized in connection with Gaya Mufassil P.S. case no. 175 of 2008 instituted under diverse sections of Indian Penal Code including Section 302 IPC which gave rise to aforesaid S.T. no. 175 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it will not be in the interest of justice to allow the vehicle to be kept seized and rot. It is next contended that the Court ought to have 3 considered the application of the petitioner favourably as the petitioner is prepared to furnish appropriate undertakings and furnish sureties for production of the aforesaid vehicle as and when called upon by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states before this Court that the petitioner is prepared to furnish a bond and appropriate sureties as may be fixed by the learned Trial Court and also to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the learned Trial Court while releasing the vehicle in question. It is pointed out that forensic examination of blood stain etc. allegedly found on the vehicle has already been made. Allowing the vehicle to rot in these circumstances shall not sub-serve the cause of justice. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 states before this Court that he has absolutely no objection in such release in favour of the petitioner who is a representative of the Court. He also submits that in the fitness of things, continued seizure of the vehicle shall not serve any bona fide purpose. Having heard both sides, this Court is inclined to allow this application. Consequently the impugned order dated 11.9.2009 passed in S.T. no. 175/08 (State versus Pawan Singh) refusing to release the vehicle in question is set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to release the vehicle in question on furnishing appropriate sureties and the undertakings as may be deemed fit and proper by the learned Trial Court. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )