IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11530 of 2009 MANOJ CHANDRABANSHI @ MANOJ KR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR For the petitioner: Mr.N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate. For the State: Mr.Y.P.Sinha,A.A.G.5. 3 14.9.2009 The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that by seizure of the vehicle in question affects business of the petitioner and as such this case would come under the heading Group ‘Trade and Commerce’ as well. Learned counsel further submits that he has not prayed for quashing of the criminal prosecution but release of the vehicle which is being uses in Trade and Commerce. In view of the aforesaid submission the defect as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter is ignored. The learned State counsel submits that the petitioner ought to have filed application under section 451 of Cr.P.C. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to various orders passed by this Court in writ jurisdiction in support of his contention that the writ would be equally maintainable. This Court also finds that there is no bar in writ court in maintaining an application under Article 226 for release of seized vehicles. The petitioner prays for release of his two tankers bearing Nos.BR 52/3858 and AS 14A 3606 in the case under E.C.Act. He submits that the vehicle is a public carrier and is being used for commercial purposes and no purpose would be 2 served by keeping it under seizure. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court for the present is not going into the merit of the prosecution cases. As the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and may rest. If it is kept under open sky. As such I direct that if the petitioner files an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, he would release the vehicle on furnishing adequate security, 10% of which would be in form of cash security. The release of the vehicle would be subject to the result of the prosecution case and confiscation case, if any the security deposit also be subject to the result of the criminal prosecution arising out of Makhdumpur P.S. Case No.297 of 2008. Let this order be faxed at the cost of the petitioner. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)