Judgment : The application has been filed by Shaju Erakkath Khatoon alias Kuttan challenging the legality, validity and propriety of an order passed under Section 451 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia at Krishnanagar whereby his prayer for returning pass port, identity card, pass book, cheque book during his stay at Bahrain was refused. The petitioner also made a prayer to return seized money bag, bags containing his wearing apparels, one bag containing clothings, one voter identity card and Nokika mobile phone also. That prayer was also rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the seized property cannot be returned to the petitioner/accused since charge sheet against him has been filed under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and at that stage of trial when those seized articles are supposed to be required for the purpose of trial. Heard Mr. Prabir Mjumder, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabir Mitra, learned Counsel for the opposite party/State. On perusal of the order impugned, I find that the learned Trial Court did not also agree to return the seized articles to the petitioner which were his personal belongings such as, wearing apparels, mobile phone, voter identity card etc. besides some documents given by Indian authorities not by any foreign authorities. The copy of the charge sheet shown by Mr. Mitra, learned Counsel for the opposite party/State leaves no room of doubt that the petitioner is either a resident of Kerala or Nadia. Amongst the seized articles, the item No.1 is a pass port in the name of the petitioner issued by the Indian authority, item No.2 is one savings bank account pass book of one South Indian Bank, item No.3 one cheque book in the name of the petitioner in respect of his savings bank in South Indian Bank, item No.6 is one blue colour kitbag containing wearing apparels of the Indian national, item No.7 is another bag containing wearing apparels of the petitioner, item No.8 is voter identity card in his name, item No.9 is one Nokia mobile phone. Those articles were seized from the petitioner by the I.O. of the case. Excepting the item No.4, the temporary identification card issued by the authorities of Bahrain, other articles mentioned in the seizure list, allegedly seized from his possession, are actually personal belongings and documents issued by Indian authorities/Bank. Those articles were seized from the petitioner by the I.O. of the case. Excepting the item No.4, the temporary identification card issued by the authorities of Bahrain, other articles mentioned in the seizure list, allegedly seized from his possession, are actually personal belongings and documents issued by Indian authorities/Bank. Therefore, I think excepting the pass port issued by the Bahrain authorities, the other seized articles ought to have been released in favour of the petitioner by the learned Trial Court because those are required for his day to day life. The Indian pass port, Indian voter identity card, Indian bank account, Indian savings book cannot be subject matter in a case under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act specially when in the charge sheet, this petitioner has been shown as either a man of Kerala or Nadia, West Bengal. Nowhere in the forecorners of the charge sheet, he has been shown as a man of Bahrain or any other country outside India. If so, it is not understood why these articles should not be returned to the petitioner and withheld/retained by the judicial authorities till the case is disposed of, i.e., for an uncertain period. Accordingly, I allow the prayer. The order dated 7.4.2010 is set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to return all the seized articles excepting the item No.4 of the seizure list to the petitioner on condition that he should produce the same as and when required for the purpose of trial and that he should execute a bond of Rs.25,000/- as a security for those articles till the disposal of the case. The learned Magistrate will be at liberty to pass further order under Section 453 on conclusion of trial regarding the seized properties mentioned above. The revisional application is, thus, disposed of.