Allowed¶49

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC8 Jul 2025CR. MISC./33139/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, under S.482 CrPC relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, quashed a trial-court order refusing release of a truck (BR44G-6204) seized in an illegal sand-mining case (Piro P.S. No.128/2023; Ss.353, 323, 120(B) IPC) and directed its conditional release to the owner-petitioner with an undertaking not to alienate it till end of trial.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 qua the petitioner and conditional release of Truck bearing Registration No. BR44G-6204 to the petitioner, subject to sureties/verification of rightful ownership, an undertaking not to sell or part with the vehicle till conclusion of trial, and to produce the vehicle within one week if directed and/or pay its value per Income Tax law if ultimately directed. ¶49

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 21.03.2025 of the 8th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhojpur at Ara rejecting the release of the seized Truck bearing Reg. No. BR44G-6204 (Piro P.S. Case No. 128/2023) should be quashed and the vehicle released to the petitioner under section 482 CrPC. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the 8th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Piro P.S. Case No. 128 of 2023 is quashed/set aside qua the petitioner.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The application stands allowed, with directions to the learned trial court to release the Truck bearing Registration No. BR44G-6204 against such sureties and conditions as satisfy the trial court/concerned court that the petitioner is the rightful owner.

¶49

Key takeaways

Conditions imposed on the release: the petitioner shall not sell or part with ownership of the vehicle till conclusion of the trial, and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial court to produce the vehicle within one week if so directed and/or pay its value (determined according to Income Tax law on the date of release) if ultimately so directed.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna HC (Crl. Misc. No.33139 of 2025, decided 08.07.2025, Chandra Shekhar Jha, J): An application under S.482 CrPC sought quashing of the order dated 21.03.2025 of the 8th Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhojpur at Ara rejecting release of Truck BR44G-6204 seized in Piro P.S. Case No. 128/2023 (offences U/s 353, 323, 120(B) IPC arising out of a raid on illegal sand mining). An earlier order dated 02.01.2025 had allowed release on an indemnity bond of Rs. 16,00,000/- with two sureties, which the petitioner did not furnish; a fresh petition was rejected on the strength of the IO's report dated 24.02.2025 alleging non-cooperation despite notice under section 41(1)B(II). Reproducing para 21 of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 on prompt exercise of powers under S.451 CrPC, the Court quashed the impugned order qua the petitioner, allowed the application, and directed release of the truck against sureties and conditions satisfying the court that the petitioner is the rightful owner, with conditions that the petitioner neither sell nor part with ownership till conclusion of trial and furnish an undertaking to produce the vehicle within one week if directed and/or pay its value (determined according to Income Tax law) if ultimately directed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33139 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2023 Thana- PIRO District- Bhojpur

¶3

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

¶4

Sanjay Kumar Singh S/O Vishwanath Singh Resident of Itwa, P.S.Sahpur, Dist.- Bhojpur

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Chandan Kumar, Mining Inspector, District Mining Office, Bhojpur.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravindra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shantanu Kumar, APP

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶14

Date : 08-07-2025

¶15

Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel

¶16

appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶17

This application has been preferred under section

¶18

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the ‘Cr.P.C.’) as to quash and set aside the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by learned 8^th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhojpur at Ara, whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the prayer to release the Truck bearing Reg. No. BR44G-6204, which was seized in connection with Piro P.S. Case No. 128/2023, and also issued a direction to the

¶19

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate – 4^th , Bhojpur at Ara, who has allowed to release the aforesaid truck in

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33139 of 2025 dt.08-07-2025 2/6

¶21

question on 02.01.2023.

¶22

It is submitted by Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle in issue i.e. Truck bearing Registration No. BR44G-6204 was ordered to release by the learned trial court in favour of the petitioner, but due to certain compelling circumstances, as on fixed date, the petitioner failed to produce the indemnity bond of Rs. 16,00,000/- with two sureties, it was not released. However, on 21.03.2025, petitioner filed a fresh petition before the court concerned for release of the aforesaid vehicle, whereafter a report was called for from the investigating officer of the case, which was made available to the learned trial court through letter dated 24.02.2025, wherein it has been mentioned that petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation, but ownership of the petitioner qua vehicle was not disputed.

¶23

It is submitted that the impugned order is amounting to review of earlier order dated 02.01.2025, which is not permissible under law.

¶24

While concluding the argument, learned counsel

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33139 of 2025 dt.08-07-2025 3/6

¶26

relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat as reported in (2002)10 SCC 283 and prayed to

¶27

release the aforesaid vehicle.

¶28

For better understanding of the factual aspect of

¶29

this case, it would be apposite to reproduce the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 as passed by learned 8^th Civil Judge,

¶30

Senior Division, Bhojpur at Ara, which runs as under:

¶31

“COURT OF 8^th CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, BHOJPUR AT ARA Piro P.S. Case No. 128/2023

¶32

State Vs. Unknown

¶33

21.03.2025: A petition for release of Truck bearing number BR44G 6204 has been filed on behalf of owner Sanjay Kumar Singh by his Ld. Counsel and press today wherein he has submitted that petitioner has filed a petition to release his aforesaid vehicle, which was allowed by the Ld. Court on dated 02/01/2025 with indemnity bond of Rs. 16,00,000/- of two sureties. Further submitted that in the interest of Justice, it is necessary to release the aforesaid vehicle. The petitioner is ready to comply with all the orders of Court hence prays to release the aforesaid vehicle.

¶34

Copy of said petition has been served to Ld. S.D.P.O. and Ld. S.D.P.O. vehemently opposed the petition of petitioner and submitted that in this case the owner of said vehicle is also made as an accused by the Police but till today he has not appeared before this Court and taken bail. The report of 1.0. also reveals that petitioner is not cooperating in trial. If, the vehicle got released, the petitioner will abscond with his vehicle.

¶35

Heard both sides and perused the case record along with report of 1.O. dated 24/02/2025 in respect to vehicle number BR44G 6204. From perusal of case record, It appears that present case got registered by informant Chandan Kumar, Mining Inspector, District Mining Office, Bhojpur against the

¶36

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33139 of 2025 dt.08-07-2025 4/6

¶37

owner and driver of vehicle number BR44G 6204 and 4-5 unknown riders of Maruti Swift Car bearing number JH01AE 0457 U/s 353, 323, 120 (B) of IPC and the case of informant is that on the alleged date of occurrence I.e 21/03/2023 while making raid for illegal mining of sand, a Truck bearing number BR44G 6204 was caught by the Mining Officer but the driver of aforesaid truck left his truck and fled away. When the sand loaded on truck was being measured meanwhile 4-5 unknown persons came with Swift Maruti Car bearing number JH01AE 0457 and started fighting with S.A.F officials, threaten to kill and forcefully took the truck and ran away from there.

¶38

From perusal of case record, It appears that a vehicle release petition to release of offending truck number BR44G 6204 was filed, whereon a report from Police Station and DTO was called for. After perusal of report of PS and DTO, the vehicle was ordered to be released after furnishing of indemnity bond of Rs. 16,00,000/- of two sureties on dated 02.01.2025 but till 02.01.2025 to 21.03.2025 (Since present petition) the petitioner did not turn up before this Court with indemnity bond. Now, on dated 21.03.2025 filed present petition and submitted to release the said vehicle when report of 10 dated 24.02.2025 came on record with submission that the petitioner is not cooperating (who was given notice under section 41(1)B(II).) in investigation and hence the seized truck Bearing Number BR44G 6204 is required to be kept seized.

¶39

I have gone through the documents and report of IO dated 24.02.2025 appended with case record from perusal of report, It appears that the petitioner has given notice U/s 41(1)B((II) but the petitioner Sanjay Kuma Singh who is owner of offending of vehicle number BR44G 6204 in spite of cooperating the police in investigation, neither providing the name of driver of offending truck, the name of 4-5 unknown persons who were sitting in Maruti Swift fight with S.A.F officials and forcefully took the truck and ran away. Due to non-cooperation of petitioner case is still on investigation. The act of petitioner appears negligent.

¶40

Considering all above, I am not inclined to accept indemnity bond at present hence petition dated 21.03.2025 stand rejected.

¶41

(Shailendra Kumar) 8^th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhojpur at Ara Dated 21.03.2025”

¶42

It would be apposite to reproduce para 21 of the

¶43

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33139 of 2025 dt.08-07-2025 5/6

¶44

legal report of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai

¶45

Ambalal Desai (supra), which reads as under:

¶46

“ 21. However, these powers are to be exercised by the Magistrate concerned. We hope and trust that the Magistrate concerned would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 CrPC are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the High Court concerned in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.”

¶47

8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

¶48

21.03.2025 as passed by learned learned 8^th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Piro P.S. Case No. 128 of 2023 qua petitioner is hereby quashed/aside.

¶49

The present application stands allowed with directions to the learned trial court to release the Vehicle i.e. Truck bearing Registration No. BR44G-6204 against such sureties and conditions, satisfying the learned trial court/concerned court ascertaining that the petitioner is the rightful owner. Further, the petitioner shall not sell or part with the ownership of the Vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial court that he shall

¶50

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33139 of 2025 dt.08-07-2025 6/6

¶51

produce the aforesaid Vehicle within one week, if so directed and/or pay the value of the Vehicle (determined according to Income Tax law on the date of its release), if so ultimately

¶52

directed by the Court.

¶53

Let a copy of this order be sent to learned trial

¶54

court/concerned court forthwith.

¶55

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶56

Rajeev/-

¶57

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	08.07.2025
Transmission Date	08.07.2025

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 21.03.2025 passed in Piro P.S. Case No. 128/2023 rejecting the petitioner's fresh petition for release of Truck bearing number BR44G 6204, on the ground that the petitioner had not furnished the earlier-required indemnity bond of Rs. 16,00,000/- with two sureties and was reported by the IO (report dated 24.02.2025) as not cooperating in investigation.¶40
8th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhojpur at Ara · 21.03.2025
Prior proceeding
Registration of Piro P.S. Case No. 128/2023 by informant Chandan Kumar, Mining Inspector, District Mining Office, Bhojpur against the owner and driver of vehicle number BR44G 6204 and unknown riders of Maruti Swift Car bearing number JH01AE 0457, in connection with alleged illegal sand-mining.¶37
Prior proceeding
Alleged occurrence on 21/03/2023 during a raid for illegal sand mining: the truck was caught by the Mining Officer, its driver fled, and 4-5 unknown persons arriving in a Maruti Swift fought with S.A.F officials and forcefully took the truck away.¶37
Prior proceeding
An earlier vehicle-release petition was allowed by the trial court on 02.01.2025, conditioning release on furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs. 16,00,000/- with two sureties, following reports of the PS and DTO. (Note: ¶¶18/21 print the date as 02.01.2023 while the trial-court record and ¶23 print it as 02.01.2025; both versions appear verbatim in the text.)¶38
Prior proceeding
Fresh petition for release of the truck filed on behalf of owner Sanjay Kumar Singh on 21.03.2025.¶33
Prior proceeding
Between 02.01.2025 and 21.03.2025 the petitioner did not turn up before the trial court with the indemnity bond, so the vehicle was not released.¶38
Prior proceeding
Ld. S.D.P.O. opposed the release petition, stating the owner had been made an accused, had not appeared to take bail, and would abscond with the vehicle if released.¶34
Prior proceeding
Report of the IO dated 24.02.2025 stated the petitioner (owner), who had been given notice under section 41(1)B(II), was not cooperating in investigation - neither providing the driver's name nor the names of the 4-5 unknown persons - leaving the case still under investigation.¶39

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padam Kumar Badaliya Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

Meen Devi @ Meena Devi @ Mina Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Deepak Kumar Jha @Deepak Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Sunny Raj Vs The State Of Bihar