2025:JHHC:22481 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2643 of 2016 Badnaran Majhi, son of Late Shri Kumar Manjhi, Resident of D-15, Kedar Gouri Apartment, Garage Chhak, Luis Road, P.O.-Old Town, P.S. Lingraj (Old town), Bhubaneshwar, Orrisa, permanent resident of village Bhagabani, P.S. – Tiring, P.O. Bahalda Road Station, District Mayurbhanj (Orrisa) 757054.…. …. Petitioner Versus The state of Jharkhand through CBI ..... … Opp. Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate. For the CBI : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Advocate ------ 5/07.08.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the CBI. 2. Prayer in this petition has been made for quashing of the order dated 08.08.2016 passed in RC-2(S)/2012 AHD-R, passed by the learned Judicial Additional Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Additional Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the case was registered for the recovery of Rs.2,50,00,000/- from Innova vehicle on 30.02.2012 when there was election of Rajya Sabha and the said recovered money was alleged to be used for purchasing the voters in the election and Namkum P.S. Case No.58 of 2012 was registered. 4. He further submits that subsequently a PIL was filed before this High Court and pursuant to the order of High Court, the investigation of the said Namkum P.S. Case No.58 of 2012 was handed over to the CBI and after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted by the CBI on 03.06.2013, in which the petitioner has been made accused along with other co-accused persons. 5. He submits that in the said case, a petition has been filed by the petitioner to release the articles. He submits that the learned Court has been pleased to allow the petition by the impugned order dated 2025:JHHC:22481 2 08.08.2016 with the condition that whenever the Trial Court passes the order for producing the said documents, the same has to be produced before him. He submits that this part of the order may kindly be modified. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that the order has already been passed in favour of the petitioner and till date, the learned Court has not passed any order to produce any of documents, already directed to be released in favour of the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, it transpires that the order is already there in favour of the petitioner and it is well known that these conditions are normal in all the pending cases where the release of vehicle and other articles are there. It has been pointed out that till then the said documents have not been called by the learned Court and that order is of the year 2016, as such, no interference is required in the said impugned order. The order is already there in favour of the petitioner. 8. In view of the above and considering the facts of this case, this petition is hereby stands dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) R.Kumar