IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35626 of 2011 Ranjit Singh @ Ranjit Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Satyendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad , A.P.P. ----------- 2 04.11.2011 Petitioner has prayed for release of his Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-2D/1773 which was seized in connection with Kurtha P.S. Case No.25 of 2011, under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act while was engaged in transportation of country made liquor after having refused by the learned lower court. Contention on behalf of petitioner is that there is no dispute with regard to ownership. Also submitted that no confiscation proceeding is pending. The learned Trial Court rejected the prayer by the order impugned dated 03.09.2011 on the ground that earlier prayer of petitioner stood rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Without adjudging the merit of the case as well as plea of the petitioner. At the other hand the learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer and submitted that the order impugned happens to be legal one because of the fact that criminal court has got no power to review or recall its own order. Then submitted that instant petition is not legally maintainable as earlier rejection order dated 30.04.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not been challenged. The seizure of Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. BR- 2D/1773 is not under dispute and in likewise manner the ownership happens to be. The report is on the record suggesting that no confiscation proceeding has been launched under Excise Act. In a 2 decision reported in reported in 2002(10) SCC, page 283 at para-17 it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court : “In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles”. So taking into account the totality of the event as well as the vehicle being kept idle in open place at P.S. campus since its seizure on 19.3.2011, is directed to be released in favour of petitioner on a bank guarantee of rupees four lacs, directing the learned lower court to verify the ownership of the petitioner with valid and up-to-date document, such as owner book, tax token, insurance paper etc. with a condition that (a) petitioner will not transfer the ownership till pendency of case, (b) will not carry the vehicle outside the jurisdiction of the court till pendency of case and (c) will not indulge in similar kind of offence. Consequent thereupon petition is allowed. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)