IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.549 of 2008 Indusland Bank Limited (Vehicle Finance Division) through its Branch Manager Kashi Nath Rai, son of Sri. Sarju Rai, resident of Luv Kush Tower, Exhibition Road, Police Station Gandhi Maidan, Town and District, Patna. ………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Officer-in-charge, Sultanganj Police Station Town and District, Patna. 2. Officer-in-charge, Sultanganj Police Station, Town and District, Patna. 3. Shashikant Kumar, son of Krishna Nandan Prasad. 4. Krishna Nandan Prasad, son of Ambika Prasad, both serial Nos. 3 and 4 are resident of house No. 38, S.B.I. Colony, Kali Mandir Road, Hanuman Nagar, Police Station Kankarbagh, Town of Kameshwar Singh, resident of Village Lalaro, Police Station Obra and District-Aurangabad. …………….Respondents ----------- 04. 12.12.2008 Petitioner is a private financial bank. It is aggrieved by the order dated 25.2.2008 passed in Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 487 of 2006, by which the learned Magistrate Ist Class, Patna City, refused to release his vehicle bearing BR-IAP-4201. The case of the petitioner is that it provided finance to one Mr. Shashikant Kumar for purchase of the aforesaid Mahendra Bolero DI vehicle, hereinafter referred to as “Bolero”. The aforesaid Shashikant Kumar could not pay the loan in spite of notice and filed an application on 28th May, 2007 before the bank expressing his desire to - 2 - surrender the vehicle in question. The aforesaid letter has been annexed as annexure-9 in this writ application. In the meantime, it was alleged that the aforesaid vehicle was used in commission of a crime punishable under Section 365 I.P.C. giving rise to Sultanjanj P.S. Case No. 487 of 2006 and at the relevant time the vehicle was in custody of the loanee. The bank as such filed an application before the learned Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna City for release of the vehicle. It appears from the order sheet that the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle in question on the ground that the same is a seized material and exhibit in the aforesaid case. In my view, the order passed by the learned Magistrate would not be sustainable in law. It would appear from the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the aforesaid vehicle has been seized and marked as exhibit. Such exhibits are due proof of the fact that vehicle in question was seized and it is not necessary that the vehicle in question should be detained till it is produced in the Court as material exhibits. A vehicle generally seized by police etc is kept under open sky without required care and is subject to decay. The Apex Court also in case of Sundar Bhai Ambulal Desai versus the State of Gujrat reported in - 3 - 2003 SC 638 has emphasized the expediency of release of vehicles and other items indicated in the aforesaid judgment. In view of the aforesaid position, I set aside the order dated 25.2.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna City refusing to release vehicle in favour of the petitioner and direct that the vehicle in question be released in favour of the petitioner on due security with undertaking that the same would be produced whenever it would be required in the aforesaid case in course of trial. Let the order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioner. Shageeer (Samrendra Pratap Singh, J)