IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5778 of 2010 NURAL HODA @ NAUSHAD @ KANDOM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 21.6.2010. Heard. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner Nural Hoda @ Naushad @ Kandom whose house was searched by the police on suspicion of having committed the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Penal Code. During search of the house of the petitioner, a cash of Rs.75,000/- and a few cellular phones were recovered from the possession of the petitioner along with a country made pistol. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at Motihari refused the prayer twice, once by order dated 28th of May, 2009 and again by order dated 3rd of November, 2009 in T.R.No.3281 of 2009. One of the above orders was questioned in Cr.Revision No.421/53 of 2009/09 which was heard by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari and the leaned trial Judge by his order dated 21.1.2010 refused the prayer of the petitioner giving rise to the present petition. As may appear from the order of the revisional court, there was no claim of the cash - 2 - recovered from the possession of the petitioner nor any one was coming forward to claim any of the cellular phones but because the petitioner was suspected to have committed offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Penal Code, somewhere at any known or unknown place against some unknown persons, as such, the court refused the prayer. The law on release of seized properties is very clear. In case of the ownership of the property being disputed and there being no clear proof of ownership being furnished by the contending parties, the court has to peruse the case diary and the paragraphs thereof as evidence so as to adjudicating the contending claims of parties. If in a case the possession is very much clear, as appears in the present one, then the properties have to be restored to the person from whom, it had been seized. The petitioner contends that there was no whisper in the FIR as to of which theft case in respect of a dwelling house, the cash could be relatable to or the seized cellular phones could be assigned to. In such a situation, it was legitimate for the court below to restore - 3 - the possession of the properties seized from the petitioner with certain conditions. This court as such directs the immediate restoration of cash of Rs.75,000/- and the cellular phones which have been seized in connection with Ghorasahan P.S.Case No.5 of 2009 to the petitioner after the petitioner furnishes a bond in the sum of Rs.1,00000/- (One lac) without any sureties. The release shall be conditioned as follows:- (1) That as and when the court directs the petitioner to pay up Rs.75,000/- to it or to anyone by depositing the same with any officer of the court as may be directed, the petitioner shall abide by the order. (2) The same conditions shall apply mutatis mutandis to the two cellular phones as well. (3) The two cellular phones after being restored to the petitioner, shall not be disposed of by the petitioner and shall be maintained in good condition. The petition is disposed of in the above light and with the above directions. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )