IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31288 of 2010 SAGAR ROY Versus STATE OF BIHAR, son of Late Dilip Kumar Roy ----------- 4/- 08.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the Betel Nuts loaded on the trucks which were seized in connection with Phulparas P.S. Case No. 43 of 2010, instituted for the offence under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court vide Criminal Writ Application being Cr. W. J. C. No. 465 of 2010 for release of the seized articles. This Court was pleased to call for a report from the police official about the authenticity of the Betel Nuts claimed by the petitioner and it was the stand of the police that the Betel Nuts were not stolen. Considering the same, this Court had remanded the matter to the Court below for passing appropriate orders, in view of the observations made therein. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, was pleased to release the articles by an order dated 10.08.2010, but the surety was unusually, exorbitant, and thus, being aggrieved the petitioner has moved this Court. On the last occasion, the State had made objection that there was a counter claim by another person with regard to the Betel Nuts seized in the present case. A report was called from the Trial Court about the same and it has been reported that 2 it was the petitioner, who had himself filed two petitions and created confusion. Thereafter, he had prayed for withdrawal of one of the petitions. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani has categorically reported that there is no counter claim with regard to the Betel Nuts. In view of such, this application is allowed and the Betel Nuts loaded on 7 trucks, and part subject matter of Phulparas P.S. Case No. 43 of 2010, is directed to be released by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani on an undertaking that in case of confiscation of goods the petitioner shall be required to refund the value of the released articles and this order is subject to the final outcome of the case. With these observations, this application is allowed. The Court below shall also consider as to whether in the facts of the case the matter can be compounded and pass necessary orders within a period of three months of receipt of a copy of this order. Let this order be communicated through FAX at the cost of the petitioner. Ashwini/- (Anjana Prakash, J. )