IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.29388 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. ------------ 2/ 8th Sept 2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed purported to be under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by one Sanjay Kumar Singh, petitioner claiming himself to be owner of bus bearing registration no. BR-2K- 6401 which has been seized by the I.O. in connection with Civil Line (Gaya) P.S. Case No. 68/11 under Section 406,409, 420 of the IPC, on having his prayer refused by the learned CJM, Gaya vide order dated 28.4.2011 as well as by the revisional court’s order dated 16.06.2011 passed in connection with Cr. Revision No. 70/11. 3. As per allegation made in the FIR which happens to be instituted by the Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation disclosing therein that there was an agreement in between the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation at one end 2 while Surendra Prasad at other whereunder Surendra Prasad was given a license for plying six buses over the rout exclusively allotted to Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and during said course, the aforesaid Surendra Prasad did not deposit the agreed amount containing Rs.5,26,724/-. The FIR further contains the deed of agreement as well as the details whereunder petitioner carries due of Rs.1,23,654/-. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that seizure of bus was in contravention of terms of contract whereunder the dues, if any, was realizable by adopting the procedure prescribed under Public Demand Recovery Act. It has also been submitted that no criminal case is made out. So, basing plea on a decision reported in JT 2002 (10) SC 80 it has been submitted that retaining of bus in open place will not only cause financial loss to the petitioner, rather it will also cause loss to national property and will cost dear to State exchequer also. 5. On the other hand, the State has opposed and submitted that there happens to be definite nexus in between petitioner and one Surendra Prasad 3 because of the fact that it was Surendra Prasad who acted as middleman after having the agreement with the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, managed the buses from different operators and then in connivance with the operators digested the amount. So submitted that the criminal intention is there which is itself evident from the conduct of the party. 6. Be that as it may, it happens to be the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court that the seized vehicle should not be allowed to ruin and that is further evident from paragraph-15 of the judgment whereunder it has been held:- “ In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles” 7. In the background of the aforesaid legal proposition as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it looks desirable that the prayer of the petitioner should be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. 8. Petitioner is directed to deposit 4 Rs.1,22,614/- in cash at Civil Court Nezarat, Gaya along with two sureties. The aforesaid amount will be subject to conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is further directed to produce all the relevant documents that means to say, owner book, tax token, road permit, insurance paper as well as will further undertake not to dispose of/change the ownership till conclusion of the trial and further to produce the vehicle whenever and wherever required by the court and learned lower court after verifying its genuineness, will issue the release order. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)