Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1122 (ALL)

SANJEEV KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-04-06

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble N.A. Moonis, J.—Heard Shri Vikrant Rana, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 21.1.2009, passed in Special Case No. 114 of 2008, whereby, the release application of the revisionist has been rejected by Special Judge/Gangsters Act, Meerut. 3. From the perusal of record, it appears that, FIR was registered against unknown persons with regard to the commission of triple murder, vide case crime No. 190 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364, 302, 201, 404, 411, 109 IPC read with Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986. After investigation the charge sheet was submitted by the police against eleven accused persons. The applicant was neither named nor charge sheeted in the said case. According to the allegations made in the FIR some persons had hired the Maruti Car which was taken from one Deepak Sharma, and thereafter, three dead bodies were found in the said car. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist, that the car in dispute is Maruti Esteem, having registration No. D.L. 6CC 6162, Chasis No. 239212, Engine No. 604169, which belongs to the revisionist and which was given to Deepak Sharma, who is the owner of the City Motors, District Meerut for the purpose of sale on 22.5.2008. Deepak Sharma had taken away the said car for his some personal use, which was ultimately found near the bridge of Hindan river, in which three dead bodies were found including the body of Sunil Dhaka, who is the friend of Deepak Sharma. Since the dead bodies were found in the aforesaid vehicle of revisionist, it was taken into custody and lying as a case property at Police Station Kotwali, District Meerut. The revisionist had moved an application for release of the aforesaid vehicle on 20.11.2008, with the prayer that the aforesaid vehicle belongs to him and he is the owner of the vehicle, he also pays insurance of the vehicle, therefore, the vehicle may be released in his favour as it is a perishable property, the revisionist has no concern with the incident in which the FIR had been registered against unknown persons. Thereafter, the charge sheet has also been submitted against some other persons, the revisionist was not found to be involved in any manner. Thereafter, the charge sheet has also been submitted against some other persons, the revisionist was not found to be involved in any manner. The said application of the revisionist was rejected by the impugned order dated 21.1.2009. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist, that the revisionist is aggrieved by the aforesaid order as it has been passed without appreciating that the vehicle in question is a perishable property and it would diminish day by day which is lying in the open premises of police station concerned, and instead of passing the appropriate order, the Court below has committed manifest error in rejecting the application of the revisionist filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. 6. The learned counsel has relied in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat, 2003(46) ACC 223 (SC), wherein it has been categorically held that; it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. It is also mentioned therein that the Court may follow the procedure of recording evidence as it thinks necessary as provided under Section 451 Cr.P.C. and before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared. 7. On the other hand, the learned AGA contended that, since the seized vehicle is the case property, which was involved in triple murder case, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle in question. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Court below, and if the vehicle was released by the Court below it will adversely affect the evidence which can be destroyed by the revisionist, therefore, this revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. There is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Court below, and if the vehicle was released by the Court below it will adversely affect the evidence which can be destroyed by the revisionist, therefore, this revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. There is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist. The Apex Court has also held in several cases, that in case the seized property undisputedly belongs to the owner and there is no contesting claimant of the same and it is also of perishable in nature, there is no absolute fetter on the release of the same, even it is a case property. There should be endeavor to conclude the trial expeditiously, and if the actual owner of the property during trial furnishes adequate security, the same should be released in favour of actual owner or claimant in exercise of power under Section 451 Cr.P.C or any other provision of the Code, after furnishing bond, guarantee and security. 9. From the perusal of record, it is evident that the Court below has accepted with the applicant-revisionist as the registered owner of the vehicle, this fact was verified by the registration and insurance papers filed by the revisionist, but on account of the fact that the vehicle was used in a very serious offence and the charges have also been framed, therefore, the vehicle could not be released as it is a case property, which is not just and proper. 10. After considering the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned AGA, it appears that the vehicle in question belongs to the revisionist, who is the actual owner of the vehicle and was also paying insurance premiums of the vehicle, and he was also not involved in the case of triple murder in any manner as he was not charge-sheeted by the police, therefore, if the vehicle seized by the police is kept in the police station it will become junk day by day, therefore, it would be appropriate to release the said vehicle in favour of the revisionist with adequate security and undertaking that as and when requires during the trial the vehicle shall be produced before the Court concerned. 11. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order dated 21.1.2009, in Special Case No. 114 of 2008, passed by Special Judge/Gangsters Act, Meerut is unsustainable, which is hereby quashed and the present revision is allowed. The Court below is directed to pass appropriate order for release of the vehicle in question which is the case property in case crime No. 190 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364, 302, 201, 404, 411, 109 IPC read with Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, by furnishing adequate bond and guarantee as well as security. It is further directed that the revisionist shall also not change the nature of vehicle or tamper in any manner and shall produce the vehicle in question before the Court below as and when required. ————