IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.500 of 2011
DHANRAJIA DEVI W/O MOTILAL SINGH R/O HOUSE NO. 3 KAILASH ENCLAVE
SHIVPURI, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA
.................. Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE INVESTIGATION BUREAU
............. Opposite Party
-----------
3. 09.02.2011 Heard the parties.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing the
order dated 24.12.2010 passed by Spl. Judge
Vigilance (Trap), Patna, by which he has refused to
release a Bolero Jeep bearing Registration No. BR-
1PA-1285 in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 111/09.
The prosecution case is that the husband of
the petitioner who happened to be Mines Inspector
was apprehended while accepting bribe of Rs. 5,000/-
upon which a substantive case was instituted against
him. Subsequently the vehicle in question was seized
from the premises where the petitioner was residing.
It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that she happens to be the wife of the
accused Mines Inspector and she had no role to play
in the present case as also that the vehicle is not the
subject matter of any inquiry since no substantive
case has been filed against husband of the petitioner,
for disproportionate assets. Further submission is
that admittedly the vehicle had been taken on loan
which the petitioner is still repaying.
The counsel for the petitioner has relied on
AIR 2003 Supreme Court Pg. 638 that articles being
subject to decay should not been kept in the premises
of the police station and should be permitted to be
released. Learned counsel for the vigilance has
protested against the release but is unable to satisfy
this court that release of the vehicle would be against
the interest of the justice.
Considering the rival submissions as also
that no useful purpose would be served keeping the
vehicle stranded at the police station which would
mean loss of nation wealth, I am inclined to allow the
application. The court shall release the vehicle on
verification of papers in favour of the petitioner on a
surety to be fixed by it and an undertaking that she
shall produce the same as and when the court
requires it to be done.
Let this order be communicated to the court
concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.
Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J. )