Ravi Shankar Kumar Akela Shree Kameshwar Prasad Karpi v. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police,Bihar,Patna

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1236 of 2011 (4) dt.08-01-2013 2 attached property. The Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, before whom the matter was pending after hearing the parties ordered for release of the property under attachment vide order dated 27.05.2009. The father of the petitioner, namely, Kameshwar Prasad filed a separate application on 20.07.2010 before the Magistrate concerned for release of the attached property. However, his application was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated

20.08.2010 passed by the Magistrate concerned. On 20.08.2010 itself, the petitioner filed another application for release of the attached property. The learned Magistrate vide order dated

20.08.2010 called for a report from the Officer-In-Charge concerned on the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner had also sought for a report under the Right To Information Act regarding status of his attached property. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya vide memo no. 791 dated

05.06.2010 informed the petitioner that as and when the petitioner would visit the police station concerned along with the release order the property attached would be released in his favour. In the present writ petition in paragraph 1, the petitioner has made the following prayers : “1. That this is an application on behalf of the petitioner invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for grant of following Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1236 of 2011 (4) dt.08-01-2013 3 reliefs:- (i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents particularly respondent nos. 3 and 4 to release all articles/goods which were attached u/s 83 of the Cr.P.C. from the house of the petitioner in the light of the order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the learned C.J.M. in connection with Khizarsarai P.S.Case No. 63 of 2007 a instituted the offences u/s 341,323,386, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act.

(ii)To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus release aforesaid attached articles/goods of petitioner for which a releasing order has already been issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gaya vide order dated 27.05.2009 (annexure-2) in the aforesaid case of the petitioner. (iii)To direct respondents to obey aforesaid order dated 27.05.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate, Gaya. (iv)To direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner by withholding the all articles/goods which were attached long back although already order of learned Magistrate, Gaya has been conveyed to the Superintendent of Police, Gaya; Officer- Incharge, Khizarsarai P.S. and authority also Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1236 of 2011 (4) dt.08-01-2013 4 by the Court process as well by the petitioner through request/application along with the order of the court. (v)To direct respondents to pay compensation with interest for the perished good/articles on account of the unreasonable delay in returning back the same despite order of the learned court of Magistrate and approach of petitioner in the P.S. (iv)To grant any other reliefs, orders(s), direction(s) for petition is entitled to have.” In the counter affidavit the stand of the State is that the writ petitioner has never approached the respondent no.4 for release of the attached property.

Learned counsel for the State submits that as and when the petitioner would appear before respondent no.4, the property attached in compliance of the process issued under section 83 of the Code shall be released to him. It is apparent from the record that the learned Magistrate vide order dated 27.5.2009 has already ordered for release of the attached property. The allegation respondents are not releasing the attached property has been denied in the counter affidavit. The petitioner has brought on record certified copy of the order dated 18.05.2007 to 21.12.2010 which has been marked Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1236 of 2011 (4) dt.08-01-2013 5 as annexure 2 to the writ petition. From perusal of the order sheet, it does not appear that the order of release of the attached property was ever communicated to the police station concerned. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to approach the respondent no.

4 in order to receive the attached property. The moment the petitioner would approach respondent no.4, he shall be obliged to release the attached property forthwith. So far as the question of grant of compensation with interest for the perished goods/articles on account of the unreasonable delay in returning back the same despite order of the learned court of Magistrate is concerned, the facts are not admitted. Of course, there was order of release of the attached property in the file of the Magistrate but the issue is as to whether the order of Magistrate was ever communicated to the police station and the petitioner ever went to the police station to receive attached property. The contention of the petitioner is that he went to the police station but despite knowledge of the order passed by learned Magistrate, the respondent no.4 deliberately denied release of the attached property. On the other hand, the stand of the State is that the petitioner never visited the police station with copy of the release order passed by the learned Magistrate and as Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1236 of 2011 (4) dt.08-01-2013 6 such the attached property is lying in the police station.