Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 237 (PAT)

Ramayani Devi v. State Of Bihar

2006-03-22

REKHA KUMARI

body2006
Judgment 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 for quashing the order dated 11.10.2004 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Sasaram in Criminal Revision No. 150 of 2003 upholding the order dated 21.6.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Rohtas at Sasaram refusing to release the vehicle (Maruti Van) bearing registration No. UP 12D-5786 seized in Sheosagar P.S. Case No. 186/2002 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code to the petitioner. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence in this case took place on 24.12.2002. One Vijay Singh was the owner of the vehicle. The petitioner purchased the vehicle from the said Vijay Singh on 24.12.2002 on payment of Rs. 62,500/-. The vehicle was transferred in her name on 4.2.2003. She is, hence, a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle. The police seized the vehicle on 12.5.2003 when she was the owner. The report of the police also is that the vehicle in question stood in the name of the petitioner. He further submitted that the vehicle is lying in the police station and is being damaged day by day. Therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not justified in refusing the prayer of the petitioner to give her the interim custody of the vehicle and the impugned order of the learned revisional Court is not proper. 4. It appears from the impugned order that according to the materials collected during investigation one Manoj Sharma was murdered and at the time of murder she was being carried in the said Van. The impugned order further shows that as the vehicle is a material exhibit in the case and was transferred in the name of the petitioner without the permission of the Court, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order also shows that as the vehicle is a material exhibit, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not think it proper to release the vehicle and so dismissed the revision application. 5. As the vehicle is likely to be severely damaged kept for long in the police station, the vehicle should be released to its rightful owner till the disposal of the case. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 7. 5. As the vehicle is likely to be severely damaged kept for long in the police station, the vehicle should be released to its rightful owner till the disposal of the case. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 7. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram is directed to verify whether the petitioner is the real owner of the vehicle and if he finds that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and entitled to the possession, he would release the vehicle to her till the disposal of the case on her entering into a bond with at-least one surety binding herself that she would not sell or otherwise dispose of the vehicle till the final disposal of the case and would produce the same whenever required by any Court in the meantime. 8. This application is allowed accordingly in the terms mentioned above.