Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 993 (ORI)

Sudip Kumar Routray v. State of Orissa

2008-11-05

B.K.PATEL

body2008
ORDER 5.11.08 — In this revision the petitioner assails the legality of the order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Angul in Special Case No.8 of 2007 rejecting the application filed under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of Honda Unicorn motorcycle bearing registration No.OR-19E-1367. It appears that the petitioner’s father accused Pradeep Kumar Routray has been charge sheeted for commission of offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act for having allegedly found to be transporting 3 kg. 600 gms. of ganja in an Air bag in the above said motorcycle on 15.12.2007. The petitioner does not appear to have been implicated in any manner in commission of the alleged offence. it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the motorcycle, registration in respect of which stands in the name of the petitioner, having been left lying open and unattended, exposed to the vagaries of nature, in the police station, shall be subjected to deterioration unless taken care of. It was urged that as the petitioner is entitled to possession thereof, the motorcycle should be released in his interim custody pending disposal of the proceeding before the learned Judge, Spe¬cial Court. Relying on the decisions of this Court in Abhaya Kumar Satpathy v. State of Orissa reported in (2002) 22 OCR 362; Ganesh Chandra Nayak v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 CRI.LJ. 3142; and Balakrushna Das v. State of Orissa, reported in (2004) 27 OCR 17, it was contended by the learned counsel for the peti¬tioner that even if the motorcycle is liable to be confiscated upon enquiry and trial, it ought to be kept in safe custody in order to ensure maintenance and care. 3142; and Balakrushna Das v. State of Orissa, reported in (2004) 27 OCR 17, it was contended by the learned counsel for the peti¬tioner that even if the motorcycle is liable to be confiscated upon enquiry and trial, it ought to be kept in safe custody in order to ensure maintenance and care. Having heard from both sides and taking into account the principles indicated in the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sundarbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2003)24 OCR (S.C.) 444, learned Judge,Special Court, Angul is directed to release the above said motorcycle in the interim custody of the owner of the vehicle on furnishing property security of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thou¬sand) and cash security of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of that Court subject to further conditions that the petitioner shall undertake (i) not to transfer the vehicle and to produce it before the Court or any authority as and when required; (ii) not to change colour, chassis number or engine number of the motorcycle; and (iii) not to allow the vehicle to be used for any unlawful purpose. Before delivering interim custody of the motor cycle to the petitioner, a copy of the Registration Certificate of the motor¬cycle and at least colour photographs from different angles clearly making the motor cycle identifiable, to be furnished by the petitioner at his expenses, be kept on record. The CRLREV is, accordingly, disposed of. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. CRLREV disposed of.