IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.259 of 2005 SHIVA LAGAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 11 1.7.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The instant application the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the attached articles seized by the police under section 83 Cr.P.C. in Punpun P.S.Case No.39 of 1996 instituted under sections 304(B)/34 of the Penal Code. The properties of the petitioner were attached as he was evading arrest in the aforesaid case. The petitioner surrendered on 20.7.1996 and prayed for release of his attached property. The learned Magistrate by order dated 31.7.1996 passed an order for release of the seized articles. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 9.8.1996, all the attached articles were released save and except 2 pairs of windows and one Palang. He submits that in fact the Officer- Incharge was demanding bribe for release of the aforesaid items and as such the petitioner filed a complaint Case No.17 of 2000 giving rise to Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 of 2001 against Ram Chandra Ram, Sub-Inspector cum Officer-Incharge, Punpun P.S. and Shri Ram Naresh Tiwary, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Punpun P.S. In the aforesaid case charge sheet has been submitted by the Vigilance department. 2 KHAN Counsel for the State submits that time and again notice was issued to the petitioner to take back the attached property but he has been negligent in receiving the same. He submits that even the writ application filed by him has been dismissed twice for non-prosecution. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the affidavit filed on behalf of Mithilesh Kumar Das, Police Inspector wherein he has stated that no further articles seized in the instant case is available in the Malkhana. He further submits that the articles which were asked by him to identify and take it back were not identifiable. It appears that 2 pairs of windows and one Palang could not be released in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that some more articles have not been released which fact is disputed by counsel for the State. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this court observes that if the Vigilance Case succeeds and the delinquent are subjected to fine, then in that case the petitioner can file a petition for allocation of equivalent amount in respect of the two properties mentioned above as per its value existing in the year 1996. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)