IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14667 of 2008 JAGAT TIWARY, Son of Late Kamal Tiwary, resident of Village- Khajuria, Police Station-Malahi, District- East Champaran at Motihari...........Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR.................................................Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 07.05.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.02.2008 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2008 whereby the petitioner’s application dated 23.01.2008 filed for modification of order dated 16.01.2008 was rejected. In petition dated 23.01.2008 it was prayed that the property directed to be released vide order dated 16.01.2008 by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, be modified or release of property should be kept in abeyance till the appearance of other accused Sharda Devi and Bhagya Narayan Pandey. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide Annexure-2 the seizure list was prepared in pursuance to the execution of the processes under Section 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2 which by a common seizure the joint family property has been seized. Subsequently, one of the accused Ranvijay Pandey was arrested and consequently released on bail. Then the application was moved by said Ranvijay Pandey for release of the attached property and consequently on 16.01.2008 the learned trial court directed to release the property so attached but the learned trial court erred by not looking into the seizure memo contained in Annexure-2 which is a common seizure of the joint family property. Hence the trial court ought to have released the property to the extent of the share of RanVijay Pandey and not entire joint family property in the background of the fact that still Bhagya Narayan Pandey and Sharda Devi are absconding and not allowing the trial to proceed. In the circumstances, the trial court is directed to consider the release the seized property to the extent of the share of Ran Vijay Pandey and not entire joint family property if the property had already not been released. If the property has already been released then the petitioner is at liberty to file an application for modification of the release order already passed. 3 With this observation, this application is disposed of. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)