Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 200 (PAT)

Manoj Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-29

MADHAVENDRA SARAN

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Union of India and learned counsel for the State. 2. In the present application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.8.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bettiah in Cr. Misc. No. 44 of 2004 whereby he has refused to release the vehicle of the applicant seized in connection with unciiamed case no. 49/BTH/03 dated 9.12.2003. It appears that the Custom Inspector Circle, Bettiah seized vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration no. BR-34-7202, engine no. 483-D1-47EWZ-707719 and chasis no. 418015 which was loaded with 54 K.G. of cannabis. It is said that the vehicle was lying by the side of the road, seizure list was accordingly prepared and unciiamed case no. 49/BTH/03 dated 9.12.2003 was drawn up. 3. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India, it is said that the vehicle in question was intercepted in a abandoned position and when it was found that heavy quantity of ganja was concealed in the false chambers fabricated in the entire roof of the Sumo. It is further said that though the petitioner claimed himself to be the owner of the vehicle but he evaded to appear before the investigating officer to explain as to who was responsible for the fabrication of the cavity nor produced the so called driver Sri Naresh Kumar for examination. It has further been mentioned that a petition was filed by the Department in the Special Court, Bettiah for granting pre trial disposal of the vehicle and the same has been allowed by the order dated 31.10.2006 vide Annexure-A to the affidavit. 4. It appears that the prayer for release of the vehicle has been refused by the learned Sessions Judge, Bettiah on the ground that the petitioner has filed to prove that the vehicle in question was used for a carrying ganja without his knowledge and connivance. 5. The learned APP who appeared on behalf of Union of India on being questioned informed that uptill now the vehicle in question has not been auctioned. 6. The position is that the petitioner has claimed to be the owner of vehicle in question. It is also stated that the vehicle is lying uncared in open campus of the custom office. Such items are open to vagaries of nature when they are left uncared for. 6. The position is that the petitioner has claimed to be the owner of vehicle in question. It is also stated that the vehicle is lying uncared in open campus of the custom office. Such items are open to vagaries of nature when they are left uncared for. In such circumstances, only because the vehicle in question has been confiscated at pre trial stage it will not be proper to reject the prayer for release of the vehicle during the entire period of pendency of the criminal case before the competent court. Hence, the prayer for release of the vehicle in question is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is made clear that this court has not examined the papers of ownership relating to the sumo vehicle in question and it will be for the Sessions Judge, Bettiah to verify the original documents and he should allow the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner Manoj Kumar only when he is satisfied that his claim for the vehicle is supported by legal documents. The release shall be ad interim for the pendency of the criminal case on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bettiah. 7. Accordingly, this application is disposed of.