IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43048 of 2008 Gita Mahto son of Late Badri Mahto,,resident of village Sonama Bakhari,P.S.District Begusari…………Petitioner Vs. The State of Bihar…………….O.P. ----------- 2 13.5.2009 Vide order dated 1.4.2008 passed in NDPS Case No.2/2008 relating to Bhakhari P.S.Case No.22/2008, the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai, has rejected the petition of the petitioner for release of his Tractor seized in the case. As per allegation made in the FIR, the said Tractor was found to be used in ploughing for leveling the field where Poppy was grown. Besides, allegations have been made against other persons involved in the said act, the Tractor of the petitioner was also seized. The petitioner, therefore, filed a petition for release of the said Tractor, which has been rejected by the impugned order. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tractor was used without his knowledge and even otherwise from the allegation made in the FIR, the same was not used in producing the contraband or prohibitory items under the NDPS Act. That is why, no confiscation was made under Section 60(3) of the Act. He further submits that it is a new Tractor which has been taken on loan from a Bank duly hypothecated with the Bank and the petitioner will suffer irreparable injury if the Tractor is not released because he shall be doubly punished both in the court of law as well as in the 2 payment of loan. It is also urged that on a wrong kind of statement by learned Public Prosecutor that a confiscation proceeding was going on against the said Tractor, the court below ha rejected the case. The petitioner has brought evidence on record after due information having been obtained that there is no confiscation proceeding of any kind. He also states that he is willing to give surety and abide by all the terms and conditions which may be laid down by the court and is willing to co-operate in the matter before the trial court. In the totality of facts concerned, without finally accepting the contention of Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, the court is inclining to release the Tractor of the petitioner but after due verification of the records by the trial court subject to the condition that the petitioner shall furnish cash security of Rs.25,000/-(Twenty-five thousand) as well as additional surety before the court below. Petitioner is further directed that he will not alienate the Tractor in question during the pendency of the trial without prior permission of the court below and shall produce the Tractor in evidence when the occasion arises. This application is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.4.2008 stands quashed. Let this order of the Court be sent to the court below through FAX at the cost of the petitioner. SKBOSE (Ajay Kumar Tripathi)