Remanded

Anand Singh @ Abhinay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC2 Aug 2018CR. REV./776/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision challenging the rejection of a prayer to release seized paddy. Although the lower court found no proof of bona fide purchase, the High Court remanded the matter, noting the petitioner had furnished purchase documents, directing the Magistrate to pass a fresh order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of by remanding the case to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order within two weeks after considering documents regarding the purchase of the seized food

Anand Singh @ Abhinay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar — Property and Title | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.776 of 2018

¶2

===================================== Anand Singh @ Abhinay Kumar, S/o Sri Anil Kumar, Resident of Village- Amhara, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna.

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar.

¶6

.... .... Respondent/s

¶7

===================================== Appearance :

¶8

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Abhay Kumar Roy

¶9

=====================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 02-08-2018 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Let it be taken on the record.

¶12

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arwal in connection with Arwal P.S. Case No. 45 of 2018 whereby the prayer made on his behalf for release of the seized paddy, belonging to the petitioner, has been rejected.

¶13

Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has submitted that despite the petitioner having shown to the Court below that the aforesaid paddy was purchased by him for consideration, the order of release was not passed. Apart from this, it has been argued that the learned Magistrate was in possession of the Police Report which recommended for the release of the truck as well as of

¶14

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.776 of 2018 (2) dt.02-08-2018

¶15

2/3

¶16

the paddy but the learned Magistrate, in his wisdom, did not accede to such a request of the petitioner with respect to the release of the truck. Since no separate order was passed with respect to the release of the paddy, a separate application was again filed by the petitioner.

¶17

The Court below appears to have rejected the aforesaid prayer also on the ground that no document was furnished by the petitioner to show that he is a bona fide purchaser of the aforesaid foodgrains.

¶18

The petition for release which was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has been annexed by way of supplementary affidavit. It does not contain any document regarding purchase of the aforesaid foodgrains.

¶19

In that view of the matter, no fault could be found with the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶20

However, looking at the documents furnished by the petitioner in the present petition regarding the purchase of the subject foodgrains by him, this Court only deems it appropriate to remit the case to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for writing a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into account and being satisfied that the petitioner had purchased the aforesaid foodgrains and even the Police had recommended for the release of the same in favour of the petitioner. For the

¶21

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.776 of 2018 (2) dt.02-08-2018

¶22

3/3

¶23

aforesaid order to be passed, the petitioner shall be required to file a fresh petition with all the documents before the Court below along with a copy of this order, whereupon the learned Magistrate shall pass an order within a period of two weeks from today. This time limit has been given to the Court below for the reason that the paddy is a perishable foodgrain and no good purpose would be served in keeping it in the police station premises. The learned Magistrate may insist for furnishing a surety bond of the valuation of the subject paddy.

¶24

With the aforesaid direction and observation, the present petition is disposed of.

¶25

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶26

Shageer/-

¶27

U T

Anand Singh @ Abhinay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Singh @ Abhinay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Sect. Home Dept., Bihar and Anr.

Krishna Kumar Dutta and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Smt. Pushpa Devi Banka Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pappu Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Shamshad Vs Shabana Praveen

Preeti Kumar @ Preeti Kumari Vs Nishant Kumar