IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAHISGARH AT BILASPUR : CR. M. P. NA[<1 -^OF 2Q1L§ IN THE MAHER OF: Petitioner/Applicant B.P.N. Real Estate & Allied Limited, Branch Arjuni Road, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari Through its Branch Manager Mukesh s..^ >'''<'^ (^'-^•••*;-^-'>^I" ^•"'^S^t',1? ..•••" Kumar Devangan, ","^ •',^?^;::'''' . S/o Shri Sant Kumar Devangan, ^ R/O New Rajendra Nagar, Amlidhih, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) '•^ VERSUS Respondent State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh PETITION UNDERSECTION 4^0F THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ^'v; ••& B%, '•idl;''' "y'ff / ^ •^s'y^? ''id?l'v^ sn^i^i R-ii* sv^s St)*1iq'> •M^fl 'r ~Sv( •^M\v\^, Bfll'M'IS, 1«ICII'H1< Sff^ V^K Or IIICTI giiich £^..^......1^^ fa'b<ff' 311^1 ('WIWflfet SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohan 30.11.2010 ann AnKii binflhai, counsei f Shrl Satish Gupta, Govemrn i-ieara. This petition under Section dated 6/7/2010 passed by the Dhamtari in crirninai revision i\ ly/uo/zuiu passea oy ine juaici rejecting petitioners appiicaiion u Kiz ijr.r.u. is uirecieci against oraer Auditionai Sessions Judse (FTC) o.26/2010 by which, order dated li i'vtagisiraie, r-irsi L/iass; unamiari jaer yecuon 4b/' cr.r'.u. nas Deen amrmea. Learned counsel for the petitioner nature of aliegatlons ayainst the nas aiso oeen Tiiea, ine casn arnoi / ouflht to be released as the reiea^ OT ine appiicani wouia not aaverse nor wouid result in destrovir'fl incri both the Courts beiow uld not cor the appiication wlthout admittlng wneine[ eacn ana every or inose investigation is required by the pro; oTrence againsi ine peiiiioner. On the other hand, subrniss considering the nature of aliegat regarding violation of Secttons 4, +i''ild'fl-( imHf'? 'fs^t TfsregR ^; 3l)?(R 311^1 nnvasiava, o. r the petitioner. nt Advocate for the State. »-^ :—-l:—^ araueci ttiat consiaenng tne peirtioner ana inai ine cnargesneei int seized, as aiso certaln lurnitures )e OT tnose properties in tne custody |y affect the case of the prosecution minaiiny eviaence. ne suDmiis inai jsider this aspect and have rejected itseif to fhe cruclai aspect as to laiilcies seized bv the Dolice uuririQ iecuiion 10 urove ine comtnission or on OT iearneu otate counsei is tnat lons ieveiea againsi ine petiiioner o ana o u Prize Chits and rvionev [Tfl^ ^pa^t 1 ^ sXI^IC-22 iy 'y 'TS? •^l'iilcl^, anlwie, i'ldi'yy Sff^l Xf^? t^O- 111CTI ShNlch ^ ^oo l^e^s' sn^r^ii ^•'lich •si^\ T^fl^i •M^a 311^1 ?^(!!W ^liTO -»?- 'tlillfldl-i ^M'-S^ fecZt iFalt^K ^ aipgH sii^[ otrcuiaiion bcnemes (Banningi /<jc seized esseriilaliy form part of | invoivement OT ine peiiiioner in 11) subrnits that if thuse articies are r|i peiiiioner wouiu cornpieteiv cnaiTK arreci ine case 01 ine prosecuiioi 'oeiow nave rejecteu tne appiicaii to prove titie in respect of tho^s iilegaiity in the order ofthe Couris From perusal of the order Courts below have reiecteu the at)| by the police on consideration th^t ;t, iy/"y, tne arocies wnicn nave ueen Incriminatinu evidence to Drove the ^S£-—^- E i- e aiiegeu commission OT onence. ne leleased In favour of the uetitioner, the jige their nature which wiii adverseiy n. rie ruririer suurniis inai ine tjouris pn siaiing tnat tne petitioner nas Taiiea }e articles and therefore there is no ueiow. pr ine ijouns &eiow, it snows inat tne ab.ulication for reiease of articies seized matenai anu on trie yrounu tnat The articies which are enumerat aiso mentioneu in tne oroer OT tn inougn inere are cenain incrimin< the prosecution to prove the aiii as casn amouni is concernea, interirn custody of t'ne petitioner Pal, Assistant ivlanaaer and ^-^ ivianager upon ODiaining proper at the conclusion of the triai. iv Aiinira are concerneu, ine sarne as in ine opiniun oiinis uoun:, tne sarne Torrns pan QT incnminating [ne petrtioner nas not proveu nis tiue. pa in ine propeny seizure merno and <e iearned revisionaf Court reveal ihat 1--A? =- --= 1--- -^. - -; -- —.^^3^.3.^— ^ ^— ^- .-^ S;—- - n®un.qmaienai wnicn couia oe usea uv euaiion againsi ine ueiiiioner, in so T'ar Ithe sarne coutu be reieased to the Iwhich are seized frorn Pritarn Chand il/iuKesn i\urnar uewangan, orancn ^ecurity to ensure deposit of the same [ot'eover, in so far as, Table, Chairs, 4ould aiso be reieased to the petitioner reiease OT ine sarne 10 ine intenm ['Tft^ ^3r4 XI-HC-22 SII^T^I P<ii?ft ^i^i E.ti+iicn ti^a ~Sv( -^MM^, anl^'is, hfiKiy sn^r '^SK >y^.HWl9 "^ '200 11*ICTI sh11<»i | Iq^ar" SII^T ^RITWHf?^ 3- [_ • • ^ ^ ^\ custouy OT the appiicant is not iil^eiy to adverseiy affect the case of the prosecuiion. Accorainyiy, ine reviision is paniv aiiowea. ' i"ne TOiiowinH anicies snaii a). Cash amount of Rs.4,53j Turnisning uanK guaraniee u). Aii tabies, chairs, aimiras, ij i ne Detrtioner snail tumisl lurnitures etc. The prayer for rel^ase of rest of the aElicles Is not fuund tenabie and therefore the ordet rejeuiion or petiuoners appiicaii| appears lo oe jusi ana proper 'sfm petition is accordlngiy partly aiiovii|ed to the extent indicated above. +IAlfd^ TTR^ff ^ 'fe1!st' ^rtei't. ^? SlfsPT SD^I oe reieasea: - |000/-, on the condition of petitioner orthe sarne. ooler and feiephone box. 1 soivent securltv against reiease or the Courts below in so far as pn lor inierim cusioay is concerneu, hu no interference is caiied for. The Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [Tft^ ^Ftsi^