Pradeep Mistri @ Pradeep Sharma v. The State Of Bihar Through The District Magistrate, Darbhanga And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.148 of 2018 ====================================================== Pradeep Mistri @ Pradeep Sharma Son of Sone Lal Mistri Resident of Village - Kusheshwar Asthan, P.S. - Kusheshwar Asthan, District - Darbhanga.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Darbhanga.
2. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga.
3. The Excise Superintendent, Darbhanga.
4. The Inspector Cum S.H.O. Bahera, District - Darbhanga.
5. The Inspector Cum S.H.O. Manigachi Police Station Darbhanga. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, AC to SC-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 05-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle in question was earlier seized in connection with Bahera P.S. Case No.256 of 2017, but thereafter by virtue of an order passed by the learned Special Judge, Excise the vehicle was released in favour of the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the vehicle has again been seized in connection with Manigachi P.S. Case NO.153 of 2017 dated 11.07.2017 under Section 30(a)/32(2)/35(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 read with Section 182 of
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.148 of 2018 (2) dt.05-02-2018 the Motor Vehicles Act.
So far as the present case is concerned, it appears from the prayer made in the writ application in paragraph 1 that the petitioner has moved this Court for a direction to respondent no.5 to release the vehicle Bolero in connection with Bahera P.S. Case No.256 of 2017.
If it is his own case that in Bahera P.S. Case No.256 of 2017 the vehicle was already released and now it has been seized in connection with another case, the writ application seems to be totally misconceived. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Arvind/- U T