Mukhtar Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2704 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mukhtar Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 6 April, 2026

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                                      Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:9535 )

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr. Revision No. 138 of 2024

       Mukhtar Alam, son of Ashraf Alam Ansari, resident of village: Bhingodih,
       PO: Kubri, PS: Rajdhanwar, District: Giridih. ...       Petitioner
                                     Versus
       The State of Jharkhand                        ...          Opposite Party

                                       ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate For the State : None

---

07/06.04.2026 Heard Mr. Diwakar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the State.

2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 07.10.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in MCA No. 2446/2022 (C. Case No. 713/2018), whereby and whereunder, the prayer of the petitioner for release of his tractor and trailer has been rejected.

3. It has been alleged that during patrolling by the Forester, a tractor and a trailer, which were illegally transporting wooden logs, were seized.

4. Since the petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the tractor and trailer, he had filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma for release of the same, which however was rejected on 07.10.2023, which is the order impugned to the present application.

5. It appears from a perusal of the order dated 07.10.2023 that a confiscation case has already been initiated being Confiscation Case No.34/2018.

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not received any notice in the confiscation case and the petitioner is also not aware as to whether any such confiscation case has been initiated or not but, as stated above, the order dated 07.10.2023 does reflect initiation of a confiscation proceeding and since the petitioner has a remedy available to appear in the confiscation proceeding itself, if the same has not been disposed of or to prefer an appeal, if it has been disposed of against the petitioner, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma had rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for release of his seized tractor and trailer.

7. There being no merit in this revision application, the same stands dismissed.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

06.04.2026 S.B. Uploaded on 06.04.2026