IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.572 of 2009 SAYAD AFROJ AHMAD …Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …Opposite party For the petitioner :Mr. Sabal Kr. Jha For the State :Mr. Jharkhandhi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 02. 16.11.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19.03.2009, passed in S.T.No.01/09, whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for release of the truck bearing registration UP 53C/9733 has been considered and rejected on the following ground: “Considering the above facts it appears that this truck is using for the commission of capital offence u/s-364 and 396 I.P.C. If the truck is released it can be again used for commission of such heinous crime. Considering these facts it appears that it is not proper to release the truck in question to the petitioner. Accordingly this petition dated 4.3.2009 stands rejected.” An FIR was lodged on 20.12.2007 alleging, inter alia, that the informant along with the driver and Khalasi went to Khagaria for unloading Masoor Dal and as soon as they reached at village Narayan, another truck reached there and 6 to 7 persons disembarked from the said truck and overpowered them and committed robbery. The driver and Khalasi of the truck were captivated and their neck was tied by „Gamchi‟ and the bodies were thrown on the border of Udwant Nagar. The driver and Khalasi of the truck lost their lives. 2 The case of the petitioner is that the truck is owned by him. Under the written agreement the same was made over to one Surendra Kumar for plying the same and pay the agreed amount on monthly basis. Aforesaid Surendra Kumar and Manoj Rai are accuseds of the case. The truck in question was seized in connection with said crime. Petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle made an application for release. A report from the concerned police station was called for. The report submitted by the police indicated that petitioner is not facing charge(s) in the present case and that investigation revealed that he had made over the truck for plying to the accused under an agreement. It further revealed that on verification it has been found that petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle. It is the stand of the petitioner that continued seizure of the truck will enormously tell upon his economical condition as the petitioner is required to pay instalments to the financer of the vehicle. If the petitioner is not an accused and his stand about handing over the truck to the accused under an agreement for plying has been found true on verification and there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the vehicle, in my view, allowing the vehicle to rot only for the reasons that the same was used in heinous crime and there is likelihood of being used in the crime, is not justified. Counsel for the petitioner stats that he would be willing to furnish appropriate security in the shape of bank draft 3 together with an affidavit in the court below to produce the said vehicle as and when required by the court. Consequently, this Court is satisfied that order impugned requires to be interfered with. The order dated 19.03.2009 rejecting his application for release of the vehicle is quashed and set aside. The trial court shall release the truck bearing no.UP 53C/9733 on appropriate security to be furnished by the petitioner in the shape of bank guarantee. It will be open to the court below to impose such other condition(s) as may be deem fit and proper. However, the court below would ensure release of the vehicle within three weeks from the date of filing of the application in the court below and complying with the conditions of release. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )