IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8770 of 2011 RAKESH PRASAD @ RAJU S/O INTE SHIV PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- MAINA MATH, P.S.- GHOSI, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD AT PRESENT R/O POSTAL PARK, CHIRAIYATARD, DISTRICT- PATNA ………….Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …………..Opposite Party ----------- 2. 11.03.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 3.3.2011 passed by the A.C.J.M., Patnacity in Fatuha P.S. Case No. 490/10, by which an application for release of the seized car, gold ornaments and mobile has been disallowed. It has been submitted that none of the three articles are stolen property and there is no dispute with regard to the ownership and therefore, the order impugned is bad. The petitioner is directed to file an application along with the documents with regard to the car in question and upon such an application the A.C.J.M., Patnacity will call for a report from the D.T.O. concerned and satisfy himself about the genuineness of the registration of the car in question. Once he is satisfied he will pass appropriate orders without being prejudiced about the fact that a First Information 2 Report which has been instituted in its regard. However, this application with regard to release of the jewellery and mobile specified in the seizure list of which the petitioner claims to be the sole claimant is allowed and the A.C.J.M., Patnacity is directed to notice the rest of the accused persons to satisfy itself as to whether they lay claim on these articles and in case they do not do so he shall release the same on surety to be fixed by itself. With these observations, the application is disposed off. However, the A.C.J.M., Patnacity is directed to fix an outer time limit within which the exercise of calling for a report from the D.T.O. concerned is concluded, so that there is no further delay in release of the car which is subject to decay. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J.)