JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondent authorities to release the truck of the petitioner being Registration No. JH-02J-0151, which was seized by the police in connection with Mahuatand P.S. Case No. 14/2019, G.R. No. 315/2019 registered under sections 379/413/414/34 of the I.P.C. Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 30(II) of Coal Mines Act, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M. Bermo at Tenughat.

3. Mr. Sidhartha Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on 02.04.2019, the truck of the petitioner was seized by Mahuatand Police and pursuant to such seizure F.I.R was instituted being Mahuatand P.S. Case No. 14/2019. From perusal of F.I.R it appears that the truck of the petitioner was alleged to have been involved in illegal transportation of coal as such the foresaid case was instituted in which the truck of the petitioner was seized by the police. After institution of the F.I.R. the petitioner moved before the trial court in Misc. Crl. Application No. 800/2020 praying therein to release his truck. The learned court below vide order dated 25.02.2020 was pleased to allow the application for release of the truck of the petitioner and after verifying the genuineness of the document in connection with the truck, directed to release the truck in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that by this release order the petitioner was directed to file indemnity bond of Rs. 5,50,000/- which has been submitted by the petitioner before the court below on 27.07.2020. He further submits that one petition is received by the court by respondent no. 2. After the release order, the petitioner moved before the respondent no. 2 for release of the vehicle in question. The respondent no. 3 refused to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the order was passed by the learned trial court which was incumbent upon the respondents to release the vehicle. According to him, there is no intimation of confiscation proceeding to the petitioner as well as the concerned court and that is why the order is required to be complied. He further draws the attention of the Court to the order dated 17.03.2020 contained in Annexure-A to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State. By way of referring this order, he submits that the said notice dated 17.02.2020 was received in the concerned court on 17.03.2020. According to him, Section 52 (C) of the Forest Act has not been effected prior to receiving of the letter intimating confiscation in the court concerned. He further submits that in paragraph no. 8 of the rejoinder he has stated that the petitioner has also not received any intimation of confiscation. On this ground, he submits that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may direct to release the vehicle in question.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sarkhel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that it has inadvertently not informed the court about the confiscation proceeding. He submits that the report was submitted by the police on 10.02.2020 before the concerned court and that report was incomplete, in view of the fact that the information of commencement of confiscation proceeding has not been provided by the police inadvertently. He further submits that by letter dated 17.02.2020 intimation was already sent to the concerned court as well as the petitioner with intimation to the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro for putting forth the prosecution version vide letter no. 338 dated 17