IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.500 of 2011 DHANRAJIA DEVI W/O MOTILAL SINGH R/O HOUSE NO. 3 KAILASH ENCLAVE SHIVPURI, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA ……………… Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE INVESTIGATION BUREAU …………. Opposite Party ----------- 3. 09.02.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by Spl. Judge Vigilance (Trap), Patna, by which he has refused to release a Bolero Jeep bearing Registration No. BR- 1PA-1285 in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 111/09. The prosecution case is that the husband of the petitioner who happened to be Mines Inspector was apprehended while accepting bribe of Rs. 5,000/- upon which a substantive case was instituted against him. Subsequently the vehicle in question was seized from the premises where the petitioner was residing. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she happens to be the wife of the accused Mines Inspector and she had no role to play in the present case as also that the vehicle is not the subject matter of any inquiry since no substantive case has been filed against husband of the petitioner, for disproportionate assets. Further submission is that admittedly the vehicle had been taken on loan which the petitioner is still repaying. The counsel for the petitioner has relied on AIR 2003 Supreme Court Pg. 638 that articles being subject to decay should not been kept in the premises of the police station and should be permitted to be released. Learned counsel for the vigilance has protested against the release but is unable to satisfy this court that release of the vehicle would be against the interest of the justice. Considering the rival submissions as also that no useful purpose would be served keeping the vehicle stranded at the police station which would mean loss of nation wealth, I am inclined to allow the application. The court shall release the vehicle on verification of papers in favour of the petitioner on a surety to be fixed by it and an undertaking that she shall produce the same as and when the court requires it to be done. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J. )