Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 832 (JHR)

Arvind Kumar Sahni v. State of Jharkhand

2010-08-26

JAYA ROY

body2010
ORDER Jaya Roy, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has filed this instant criminal revision against the order dated 10th May. 2010 passed in Cr. Revision No. 5/10 whereby the Court-below has set aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar dated 15.12.2009 directing to release the articles recovered from the possession of the Petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the articles which were recovered from his possession. 4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed to release the seized articles on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand) with one surety of like amount each but, thereafter, State has filed criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Latehar against the said release order. It is contended that the behavior of the State is very peculiar in the trial Court. The State has conceded before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate but again filed revision against the said release before the Sessions Judge, Latehar which was registered as Cr. Revision No. 5 of 2010. 5. Considering the submissions made by both the parties in my opinion the order of the Court-below is not at all tenable as he has not pointed out any specific reason for not releasing the aforesaid seized articles in favour of the Petitioner. On the other hand, Petitioner is ready to produce the said seized articles before the trial Court whenever he will be asked to produce the same. 6. Considering the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and considering the order impugned passed by the Sessions Judge, Latehar, I direct the trial Court to release the seized articles in favour of the Petitioner on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) and on depositing a cash amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) in the trial Court. Further, Petitioner will file an undertaking submitting that he shall produce seized articles whenever those will be required in the trial before the trial Court. The amount deposited in the trial Court will be subject to the result of the case. 7. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) in the trial Court. Further, Petitioner will file an undertaking submitting that he shall produce seized articles whenever those will be required in the trial before the trial Court. The amount deposited in the trial Court will be subject to the result of the case. 7. Accordingly, I set aside the order impugned i.e. order dated 10.5.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Latehar and modify the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar dated 15.12.2009 to the extent as stated above. 8. Accordingly, this revision application is allowed with the aforesaid directions. Application allowed.