IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.892 of 2011 Satyendra Prasad, son of Chandrama Prasad, resident of Mahadipur (Benipur), P.S.-Kurtha, District- Arwal. ………….Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar …….Opposite Party ---------------------------------- 3. 29.11.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 17.03.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in G.R.No.351/2011, Trial No.2971/2011 arising out of Jehanabad P.S. Case No.83/2011 by which the petition filed by the petitioner for the release of the vehicle (Tata 709) bearing registration no.BR-25G-0217 has been rejected. The petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle, which has been seized by the police in the aforesaid Jehanabad P.S. Case No.83/2011 under Sections 272, 273, 419, 420 and 308/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 47A G of the Excise Act on 26.02.2011. The allegation is that the truck was being used for carrying the illegal country made liquor. Heard Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. I.B.Pandey, the learned counsel 2 for the State. It is submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid seized vehicle, which is lying in the police station openly and uncared. The value of the said vehicle is deteriorating day to day. The petitioner undertakes to produce the vehicle whenever required. The petitioner is also getting the commercial loss as the vehicle is commercial one and is used for hiring. The prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the case is under investigation and the vehicle has been used for carrying the illegal country made liquor. The vehicle is an exhibit and during pendency of the investigation, it is not proper to release the vehicle. It is further submitted that reports regarding the vehicle have been called for from the officer-in-charge of the police station, District Transport Officer as well as the Insurance Company and the reports have been received, which are in favour of the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Sundar Bhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. It has 3 been held that there is no use to keep the said vehicle for a long period and it should be released after taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, which requires at any point of time. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing the prayer. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on the record, it appears that it is admitted position that the aforesaid vehicle has been seized by the police while carrying the illegal country made liquor in huge quantity on 16.02.2011. It has been kept uncared and the value of the vehicle is deteriorating day by day. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad is directed to get the aforesaid vehicle released in favour of the petitioner on the following conditions : (i) The petitioner will produce the 4 documents regarding the ownership of the vehicle. (ii) The petitioner will not sell, mortgage or lend the vehicle to any one. (iii) The petitioner will not change the nature or colour of the vehicle. (iv) The petitioner will produce the vehicle if and when required by the police/ court. (v) The petitioner will furnish a bond of Rs.7,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. In the result, this application is allowed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below through fax at the cost of the petitioner. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)