IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.45738 of 2009
MANI KANT MANISH, S/O- BINDA SINGH, RESIDENT OF 19, R.N.
MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700001.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH, S/O- SAKALDEO SINGH, RESIDENT
OF SHIVPURI COLONY, P.S.- MUFASSIL, DISTRICT-GAYA.
For the petitioner : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate.
For O.P. no. 2 : Mr. R.R. Tiwari, Advocate.
-----------
3 28.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for O.P. no. 2. No body has appeared on behalf of the
State. Let it be recorded that this matter was taken up on Friday
(25.06.2010) also but owning to non-appearance of the counsel
representing the state, the matter was adjourned to be heard today.
Petitioner, who is the Receiver agent duly appointed by
the Advocate Receiver under the order of the VIIth Bench of the
City Civil Court at Calcutta in Miscellaneous Case no. 5012 of 2009
(Zenith Credit Ltd. versus Pawan Kumar Singh) (Annexure-2),
assails the order dated 11.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Gaya in S.T. no. 175 of 2009 whereby
the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for release of ALTO car
bearing registration no. BR-2E/5628 has been considered and
rejected on the grounds/reasonings as under:
“It is clear from the aforesaid facts and
circumstances that the Calcutta City Court has not
passed an order for release of the aforesaid vehicle
which is an evidence in this case rather it has only
advised the master of the petitioner to take steps for
its release. Further more the case law filed on behalf
of this petitioner is differenciable from the
circumstances of this case and does not hold good in
this case. The aforesaid car is an important evidence
in this case and this petition appears to be an
endevour to remove the evidence of this case, so that
2it could not be produced as an evidence during the
trial. For the aforesaid reasons this application of
petitioner Manikant Manish is hereby rejected.”
Relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the case
may be indicated. Opposite party no. 2 herein had obtained the
aforesaid vehicle on Hire Purchase agreement dated 9.6.2005
executed by and between opposite party no. 2 and the aforesaid
Zenith Credit Ltd. Admittedly the petitioner defaulted in making
payment of the installments as contemplated thereunder. That
promoted the company to file the aforesaid civil litigation before the
Calcutta Court. As indicated in this order, on the application of the
company, learned Civil Judge appointed Sri Dipak Kumar Das as
Advocate Receiver for the purpose of taking over possession of the
aforesaid vehicle. The Receiver was also authorised to take all
possible steps including appointment of an agent and also to take
police help if at all necessary. He/she was directed to submit his/her
report by the next date. It appears from the documents placed on
record that the petitioner herein was appointed as the Receiver
agent by the Advocate Receiver so appointed by the Court. It
further appears from the record that the aforesaid vehicle was
seized in connection with Gaya Mufassil P.S. case no. 175 of 2008
instituted under diverse sections of Indian Penal Code including
Section 302 IPC which gave rise to aforesaid S.T. no. 175 of 2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it will not
be in the interest of justice to allow the vehicle to be kept seized
and rot. It is next contended that the Court ought to have
3
considered the application of the petitioner favourably as the
petitioner is prepared to furnish appropriate undertakings and
furnish sureties for production of the aforesaid vehicle as and when
called upon by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states
before this Court that the petitioner is prepared to furnish a bond
and appropriate sureties as may be fixed by the learned Trial Court
and also to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the
learned Trial Court while releasing the vehicle in question. It is
pointed out that forensic examination of blood stain etc. allegedly
found on the vehicle has already been made. Allowing the vehicle
to rot in these circumstances shall not sub-serve the cause of
justice.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party
no. 2 states before this Court that he has absolutely no objection in
such release in favour of the petitioner who is a representative of
the Court. He also submits that in the fitness of things, continued
seizure of the vehicle shall not serve any bona fide purpose.
Having heard both sides, this Court is inclined to allow
this application. Consequently the impugned order dated 11.9.2009
passed in S.T. no. 175/08 (State versus Pawan Singh) refusing to
release the vehicle in question is set aside and the learned Trial
Court is directed to release the vehicle in question on furnishing
appropriate sureties and the undertakings as may be deemed fit
and proper by the learned Trial Court.
pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )