MD.SHAMSAD @ KAJJU Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, in the present case, is seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to de-seal his shop which is said to have been sealed by the respondent State officials in connection with Khajekalan P.S. Case No.253 of 2016 dated 04.10.2016. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Patna City in G.R. No.3109 of 2016 by which he has refused to de-seal the premises and rejected the application of the petitioner.

(2.) At this stage for the purpose of provisional release/de-sealing of the shop in question Sri Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.Syed Mohammad Shabbir Alam, learned advocate on record, submits that this is a case in which even though F.I.R. has been lodged under certain provisions of the I.P.C . as well as the Explosive Substances Act , but the fact remains that no seizure list has been prepared by the police officer while sealing the shop in presence of the Executive Magistrate, Patna City. Learned senior counsel submits that since the disposal of the criminal case is likely to take many years, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his livelihood by keeping the shop in sealed condition permanently. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions which may be imposed by this Court for the purpose of de-sealing/release of the shop in question.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Parth Sarthy, learned counsel representing the State as well as Mr. Ravi Verma and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Kumar, AC to GP-5 jointly submit that the shop has been kept in a sealed condition for the present only because it was not possible on the date of sealing to prepare the inventory or seizure list, but the police authorities are ready to prepare a seizure list if the petitioner cooperates.