- (1.) I have heard the learned counsels for both sides. An amount of Rs. 16,32,500 has been seized and is lying in the custody of police. It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the money has not been seized from the applicants but from a third person. According to the applicants that third person was their driver. The applicants have claimed refund of that money from the police.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. It is not the case of the respondents that apart from the applicants there is any rival claimant to that money. The money is alleged to be lying seized for the past one and half years. Thus much time has elapsed since the seizure of the money, the amount is substantial. Yet there is no rival money claim till now. Therefore, it would be appropriate that the money be released in favour of the petitioners subject to their furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the C.J.M., Jaunpur and also furnishing personal bond of the same amount for co-operation by them in the proceedings in the IT Department. In view of what has been stated above, the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Parasnath vs. Union of India (1996) 87 Taxman 349 (MP) cited by the respondents, has no application in this case.
(3.) THE writ petition is allowed as above.;