Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 144 (ORI)

MADHAVI PATRA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2005-02-23

A.K.PARICHHA

body2005
( 1 ) ONE Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. OR-02-R-0173 was seized in connection with Bhubaneswar Mahila Police Station case No. 34 of 2004 corresponding to S. T. No. 61/439 of 2004 of the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track court-I, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner, who is working as teacher in Government High school, Kapilprasad, Bhubaneswar filed an application under Sections 451 and 457, Cr. P, C. before the said Court for release of the seized Motor Cycle in her favour on the plea that she is the registered owner of that vehicle, that she is not an accused in S. T. No. 61/439 of 2004, that due to the seizure of her motor cycle, she is facing hardship in attending her duty in the School. The prayer was resisted by the prosecution on the ground that the Motor Cycle in question was used by the husband of the petitioner in commission of an offence of rape and for escaping from the scene of crime. It was asserted that although the registration certificate of the Motor Cycle stands in the name of the petitioner, her accused-husband is the real owner of the vehicle and release of the motor cycle would amount to handing over the material evidence to the accused. Learned Addl. Session Judge, Fast Track court-I, Bhubaneswar after hearing the parties refused to release the motor cycle in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. read with Sec. 401 of the Cr. P. C. to set aside order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions judge, Fast Track Court-I, Bhubaneswar to direct release of motor cycle in her favour. ( 2 ) MR. P. K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle and not being an accused in S. T. No. 61/439 of 2004 of the Court of learned Addl. Sessions judge, Fast Track Court-I, Bhubaneswar, the vehicle should have been released in her favour. According to him, the seized motor cycle is lying at the Police Station for a considerable time and its value and utility is decreasing day by day and keeping the vehicle like that indefinitely would cause unnecessary loss, but the trial Court failed to consider this angle. Mr. According to him, the seized motor cycle is lying at the Police Station for a considerable time and its value and utility is decreasing day by day and keeping the vehicle like that indefinitely would cause unnecessary loss, but the trial Court failed to consider this angle. Mr. Rath claimed that the impugned order is unreasonable, arbitrary, against the settled norms of law and should be quashed. ( 3 ) MR. M. Dhal, learned Addl. Standing counsel, on the other hand, indicated that although the motor cycle stands registered in the name of the petitioner, the same is virtually used by her husband-accused and when the husband-accused used the motor cycle in commission of a crime like rape, the motor cycle could not have been released in favour of the petitioner, because such release would have in fact amounted to release of the vehicle in favour of the accused. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner is the registered owner of the motor cycle in question and the said motor cycle was seized in connection with the investigation of Mahila P. S. Case No. 34 of 2004 involving an offence of rape wherein the husband of the petitioner is an accused. Considering the allegation that the husband of the petitioner, after committing the alleged rape, used the motor cycle in question for escaping from the scene of crime, learned Addl. Sessions judge, Fast Track Court-I, Bhubanewar observed that release of the motor cycle in favour of the petitioner would tantamount to release the vehicle in favour of the accused and accordingly refused to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that even if the vehicle is alleged to have been used in commission of crime, still then the vehicle cannot be allowed to rot in the Police Station as it will neither profit the prosecution nor the owner of the vehicle. In support of his contention he relies on the cases of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444 : ( AIR 2003 SC 638 ), Yaswant Porwal v. State of orissa, 2004 (1) Orissa LR 497 : (2004 Cri lj 2778), Sulochana Swain v. State of orissa, 2005 (1) Orissa LR 125 : (2005 Cri lj 1330 ). In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra) apex Court observed that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep a seized vehicle at the Police Station for a long period and the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. The Court further observed that keeping the seized vehicle at the Police Station for a prolonged period will cause unnecessarily damage and loss to the property. Accepting this view of the apex Court, this Court also held in case of sulochana Swain and Jaswant Porwal (supra) that a vehicle seized in connection with a criminal case should be released preferably in favour of the registered owner after obtaining proper bond, security, undertaking etc. in order to save the seized vehicle from waste and damage. ( 6 ) IN the present instance undoubtedly there is allegation that the seized vehicle was used by the accused in the commission of a crime, but the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the vehicle asked for release of the vehicle in her favour for proper maintenance of the vehicle and also for using the same herself. In such situation although the observation of the learned Addl. Session judge, Fast Track Court-I, Bhubaneswar that release of the vehicle will tantamount to release in favour of the accused has some logic still then it cannot be over looked that keeping the seized vehicle in the police station for a prolonged period would deteriorate the condition of the vehicle and would cause unnecessary loss and damage which finally will profit none. As has been indicated by the apex Court in Sunderbhai ambalal Desai case, the best course in such situation is to allow the interim release of the vehicle in favour of the registered owner after obtaining bond and security. Therefore, the proper course in the present case was to allow release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the motor cycle after obtaining appropriate security, bond etc. ( 7 ) THE impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track court-I, Bhubaneswar is accordingly set aside. The said Court is directed to release the seized vehicle of the petitioner after the petitioner furnishes a cash security of rs. ( 7 ) THE impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track court-I, Bhubaneswar is accordingly set aside. The said Court is directed to release the seized vehicle of the petitioner after the petitioner furnishes a cash security of rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) and gives an undertaking that she will use the vehicle herself and will not allow the vehicle to be used by her husband accused, will not change the engine, chassis or Registration number, will keep it in good running condition and will produce the same as and when required by the Court. CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly. .