AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 228 wordsH.C. Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the Prosecution. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 3.10.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, in G.R. No. 3068 of 2012 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for release of the motorcycle bearing registration No. JH-02U-9723 has been rejected by the Court below.
It appears from the record that the said motorcycle has been seized in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No. 180 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 3068 of 2012, which relates to theft.
The petitioner filed the application for release of the motorcycle, but the same was rejected by the Court below stating that the investigation in the case is still going on and the petitioner may also be an accused in this case. The Court below has given the liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for release of the motorcycle in question after completion of the investigation in the case. I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. The Court below has rightly given the liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for release of the motorcycle in question after completion of the investigation in the case. There is no merit in this application filed at this stage, which is accordingly, dismissed.