Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 571 (JHR)

Rajesh Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2007-07-18

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2007
Order Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the. Motorcycle bearing registration no. JH 09E 1980, which was seized in connection with Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 77 of 2006, registered for the offence under sections 452/379/511 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the petitioner was apprehended at the spot along with the said motorcycle. when he was fleeing . away after commission of the offence alleged. 3. The petitioner states that he is the registered owner of the seized motorcycle and, as such, the said motorcycle be released• in his favour. The prayer for release of the said motorcycle was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 2.4.2007 on the ground that if the seized motorcycle is released in favour of the petitioner, then the petitioner may use the same for committing such type of offence or any other serious offence. 4. The one Prabhu Kumar Soni was the registered owny of the motorcycle in question and, in fact, the said motorcycle was transferred in the name of the petitioner on 17.1.2007 i.e. after seizure of the said motorcycle. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court filed a criminal revision being Cr. Revision No. 69 of 2007, which was also dismissed by judgment dated 13.6.2007. 6. Since after completion of investigation the charge sheet has already been filed and after submission of charge sheet, cognizance has already been taken, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the motorcycle in the police custody. 7. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed and the judgment, and order passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to release the motorcycle in question in favour of the petitioner after proper verification regarding the ownership of the motorcycle bearing registration no. JH 09E 1980 and on such terms and conditions as, the trial Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.