Amit Kumar Pandey @ Manan Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8178 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-865 Year-2019 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== AMIT KUMAR PANDEY @ MANAN PANDEY Son of Late Mahendra Pandey Resident of Mohalla - Karman Tola, Ara, P.S.- Ara Nawada, District - Bhojpur. At present resident of Mohalla - Anand Nagar, In-Ashirvad Bhawan, Near Jahur I.T.I., P.S.- Ara Town, District - Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Anupam Priyadarshi Son of Late Raghubar Dayal Pandey Resident of Mohalla - Pakari, Ara, In the House of - Panchwati, beside Amirchand Kothi, P.S.- Ara Nawada, District - Bhojpur.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Kishore Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 05-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

A vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 today in Court. Let the same be kept on record.

The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - XVI, Bhojpur at Ara in Criminal Revision No. 196 of 2019 whereby and whereby while alowing the prayer made by the opposite party no. 2, the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara dated 20.12.2019 has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8178 of 2020(2) dt.05-02-2020 2/2 set aside and has been directed to release the vehicle in question in favour of the opposite party no. 2.

Mr. Bindyachal Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that opposite party no. 2 is the registered owner of the vehicle, which was taken from the bank on loan and he is likely paying the installments and, therefore, release of the vehicle in his favour is legal and valid. He, thus, submits that the application is misconceived and may be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, I am satisfied that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U T