STATE OF BIHAR Vs. INDRASAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the matters i.e. Ori Cr. Misc. No. 25/96 and Cr. W.J.C. No. 406/96 are connected matters and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The criminal writ jurisdiction case was filed by the petitioner (Smt.Girja Devi) for a direction to the Officer Incharge, Barbigha Police Station to release the Maruti Van bearing No. DIX-189 which was seized by the police on 12-8-95 and with regard to which a case was registered on 21-8-95 being Barbigha P.S. Case No. 129/95 under Section 414, I.P.C., against unknown.

(3.) In the said case the petitioner (Smt. Girja Devi) claiming herself to be the owner of the said Maruti Van having purchased from M/s Chhabra Auto Deal Karolbagh New Delhi filed an application before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura, on 25-8-95 for release of the vehicle upon which a notice was issued to the Officer-In- charge, Barbigha Police Station. On 30th August, 95 after hearing the parties and after perusal of the report submitted by the Officer-Incharge of Barbigha Police Station the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered for release of the vehicle on furnishing security bond of Rs. 20,00,00/- with one surety of the like amount. The writ petitioner furnished the security bond and the release order was also issued on the same date i.e. 30th. Aug., 1995. On 2-9-95 the writ petitioner filed an application that in spite of the order of the Court the vehicle is not being released to her. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate issued show-cause notice to the Officer-in-charge, Barbigha, as to why a contempt of court proceeding be not initiated. Thereafter, instead of releasing the vehicle on 4-9-95 a petition was filed by the Officer-Incharge for permission to examine the aforesaid vehicle by Forensic Science Laboratory. The said petition was ordered to be kept on the record. In the meantime, again the writ petitioner moved the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate on 15-9-95 for release of the vehicle. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate having found himself into helplessness condition called for a report from the Officer-Incharge as to whether the vehicle has been released or not. Again on 24-11-95 a prayer was made to get the vehicle examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory and the Court allowed the prayer. On 29-2-96 when the vehicle was not released this poor lady again approached the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate for release of the vehicle and explanation was called for from the Officer Incharge concerned. In the meantime, on 2-3-96 report from the Forensic Science Laboratory was received and on 11-3-96 matter of release of the vehicle was again heard and the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 12-3-96 again reiterated his earlier order and a direction was issued to the Officer-Incharge to release the vehicle in question at once otherwise he will be held responsible for disobedience. But the said direction was not complied with. Thereafter the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ application.