A writ petition for the release of seized money can be granted if ownership is established and the State has no objection, provided an indemnity bond is furnished.

JUDGMENT :

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) :

Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Chaibasa passed in Majhgaon P.S. Case No.17 of 2023 and the order dated 22.07.2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Criminal Revision No.27 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of his own seized money of Rs.21,67,360/-.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the owner of the proprietorship firm namely Shree Ganesh Enterprises (Traders) of which the informant of Majhgaon P.S. Case No.17 of 2023 namely Yogendra Kamila was an employee. The said Majhgaon P.S. Case No.17 of 2023 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended in the written report of the said Majhgaon P.S. Case No.17 of 2023 that the informant collected Rs.22,22,520/- on behalf of the petitioner and while he was travelling in a Scorpio vehicle with the said money robbery was committed. After lodging of the F.I.R., police recovered Rs.21,67,360/- out of the looted amount along with the GPS embedded bag in which the money was kept.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Scorpio vehicle, which was looted along with the cash, has since been recovered and has been released in favour of the son of the petitioner; in whose name the same stood registered. There is no allegation that the money recovered by the police in connection with the case amounting to Rs.21,67,360/- is out of the total looted amount of Rs.22,22,520/-. The petitioner has submitted the documents to show the details of the money collected from different shopkeepers on his behalf by the informant of the case namely Yogendra Kamila as the petitioner was a whole-seller of grocery items. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that police has submitted a report before the court that the petitioner is the owner of the said amount and in this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner files the certified copy of the report submitted by the Officer-in Charge of Majhgaon Police Station to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa.

5. Let the said the certified copy of the report be kept in the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the rejection of the prayer for release of the seized looted amount belonging to the petitioner is against the mandate of the law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that perusal of the order dated 04.10.2023 reveals that the trial court directed the deposit of the seized amount in bank account or in other appropriate place to ensure the safety of cash and vide order dated 04.10.2023 a co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed that the orders of the trial court be complied with by the concerned police station within two days. It is lastly submitted that the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Chaibasa in Majhgaon P.S. Case No.17 of 2023 and the order dated 22.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Criminal Revision No.27 of 2023 be quashed and set aside and a writ of mandamus be issued by directing the I.O. of the case to release Rs.21,67,360/- in favour of the petitioner upon the petitioner making a proper Panchnama and the petitioner furnishing indemnity bond to deposit the said amount of Rs.21,67,360/- with two sureties with undertaking to deposit the same in the learned trial court; if and when the same is directed to be deposited by the learned trial court.

8. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that t