IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.795 of 2008 MD. MOIZUDDIN Versus STATE OF BIHAR With CR. REV. No.782 of 2008 MD.SARFARAZ ALAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 26.3.2009 As the Criminal Revision No.795 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.782 of 2008 arise out of Akbarpur P.S. Case No.1 of 2008 and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Criminal Revision No.795 of 2008 has been filed by Md. Moizuddin, said brother of one Kallu Mian who is named in the F.I.R and claim to be owner of Kabari shop seized. Criminal Revision No.782 of 2008 has been filed by Md. Sarfaraz Alam, who is brother of Md. Moizuddin and he too is the owner of S.S.Traders. It would appear from the conjoint reading of the impugned orders that Md. Moizuddin had filed an application for release of the vehicle of TATA 207 bearing No.WB 73-1454 as well as other articles seized from his Kabari shop on which lock has also been put by the police. The petitioner Md. Sarfaraz Alam filed Cr.Revision No.782 of 2008 for release of the items seized from his shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the items 2 KHAN seized from the shop of the petitioners are all their own and not subject of stolen articles being carried by truck no.BR-36A/2219. He further submits that in fact at the stage of deposition the informant stated that the articles seized from the godown of these petitioners are not even the stolen goods. It appears from the impugned orders that the articles seized are more or less similar to the stolen ingots. Having heard counsel for the parties, this court directs that the articles seized as mentioned in the seizure list, save and except those which resemble to be stolen ingots from the truck bearing no.BR-36A/2219, be released in favour of the petitioners on furnishing adequate surety to the satisfaction of learned Magistrate. So far as release of vehicle of TATA 207 bearing No.WB 73-1454 in favour of the petitioner Md. Moizuddin is concerned, the same would be released on being satisfied about the ownership of the vehicle and on furnishing adequate security 20% of which will be inform of cash security to the satisfaction of learned Magistrate. It is made clear that the release of the vehicle and the seized articles will be subject to the result of the criminal case. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. (S.P.Singh,J)