IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9973 of 2011 VIRENDRA KUMAR SON OF SRI MUNI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SARTHUA, P.S. MAKDUMPUR, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, GAYA 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GAYA 4. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, BARACHATTI P.S., SHERGHATI, GAYA ----------- 2 20.05.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28th February, 2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati, Gaya in G.R. No. 560 of 2010 arising out of Barachatti P.S. Case No. 131 of 2010 for the alleged offence under sections 467, 468, 471, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer of the petitioner was rejected without properly appreciating the claim for release of the vehicle in question. Learned counsel for the State submits that without satisfying the ownership as also in absence of furnishing adequate security, the vehicle in question could not have been released. Considering the submissions of the parties, in the opinion of the Court keeping the vehicle seized for a longer time may not be justified. In the circumstances, in case petitioner files an application for release of the vehicle in question stating the relevant details as also on furnishing the satisfactory documents with respect to the ownership of the vehicle and on furnishing the adequate security vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner which shall be subject to the final result of the aforesaid case. It is however made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. The writ application accordingly stands disposed of. Let the order be communicated to the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati, Gaya in connection with G.R. No. 560 of 2010 arising out of Barachatti P.S. Case No. 131 of 2010 through FAX on the cost being deposited by the petitioner. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)