Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 967 (JHR)

Kunal Bhardwaj v. State of Jharkhand

2012-07-13

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that vide order dated 4.5.2012 which had wrongly been recorded as 3.5.2012 seven vehicles registration numbers of which are JH-05AD-8172, JH-05AD-8127, JH-015AF-8712, JH-05AD-8721, JH-22AO-441 as well as two Pocklain Machines PC 200 excavators were ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner no.1 on filing an affidavit that all these seven vehicles belongs to him. Other condition had also been imposed. 2. Pursuant to that order, an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody, was filed before the court below upon which release order was issued by the learned court below but since the petitioner no.1 being in custody could not appear before the concerned police station, police did not release those vehicles in favour of the representative of the petitioner no.1 and therefore, an interlocutory application bearing no.876 of 2012 was filed before this Court wherein prayer has been made to modify the order to the extent that the vehicles be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner’s representative, namely, Mritunjay Kumar, son of Harinarayan Choudhary. 3. However, that prayer was objected on that day by the learned counsel appearing for the State by taking a plea that Calcutta High Court has passed an order with respect to three vehicles whereby respondents have been restrained from selling, removing, transferring, alienating or otherwise parting with possession of the assets specified in the petition presently under the custody of the police and in the garb of that order, plea was taken on behalf of the State that there would be difficulty on the part of the police officials to release the vehicles in favour of the petitioner or his representative, in view of the order passed by the Calcutta High Court but learned counsel appearing for the State failed to take notice that the police officials had never been made party in the case before the Calcutta High Court and therefore, that order was never binding on him. So far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, he will be abiding by he order passed by the Calcutta High Court and therefore, the order passed by this Court on 3.5.2012 be modified to the extent that the vehicles be ordered to be released in favour of the representative, namely, Mritunjay Kumar, son of Harinarayan Choudhary. 4. So far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, he will be abiding by he order passed by the Calcutta High Court and therefore, the order passed by this Court on 3.5.2012 be modified to the extent that the vehicles be ordered to be released in favour of the representative, namely, Mritunjay Kumar, son of Harinarayan Choudhary. 4. It was further submitted that so far 13 vehicles are concerned, numbers of which have been given below are also the subject matter of this application. 1. JH-05AA-1925 2. JH-05R -2239 3. JH-05D-2969 4. NL-02D-8889 5. NL-02D-8979 6. NL-01D-7129 7. NL-02G-4477 8. NL-02D-6898 9. HR-38A-7175 10. NL-05A-01127 11. NL-02D-8621 12. NL-2D-2383 13. NL-02G-6411 5. Out of which three vehicles bearing registration numbers JH-05AA-1925, JH-05R -2239 and.JH-05D-2969 have been sought to be released in favour of petitioner no.1 and the other ten vehicles have been sought to be released in favour of petitioner no.2 but the petitioner no.1 is not the registered owner of the aforesaid three vehicles, bearing registration no. JH-05AA-1925, JH-05R -2239 and.JH-05D-2969 and similarly, petitioner no.2 is also not the owner of the rest of the vehicles but affidavits of the persons who are the owners of those vehicles have been filed along with the supplementary affidavit so that vehicles be released in their favour. 6. In this regard, it was further submitted that the persons, who are registered owner could not approach the court below for getting their vehicles released for the reason that the court had earlier passed an order on the matter relating to release of vehicles that he has got no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 7. Under this situation, affidavits of the owners of the vehicles have been filed before this Court and therefore, those vehicles be ordered to be released in their favour. 8. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that further development has taken place during the pendency of this matter that the Enforcement Directorate has already filed a regular case and as such, the petitioners now are not entitled to get an order of release in their favour. 9. However, Mr. 8. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that further development has taken place during the pendency of this matter that the Enforcement Directorate has already filed a regular case and as such, the petitioners now are not entitled to get an order of release in their favour. 9. However, Mr. Niyaji learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate is based on the case registered by the District Police in connection with which all those vehicles had been seized but filing of the case by Enforcement Directorate will have no bearing in this case as admittedly the Enforcement Directorate has never seized those vehicles. 10. Admittedly, the vehicles have not been seized in connection with the case which had been lodged by the Enforcement Directorate, rather those vehicles had been seized in connection with the case which was registered as Sidgora P.S case no.6 of 2012 for the offences under the Indian Penal Coe and also for the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act which the police does not have any authority to lodge the case. 11. However, no charge sheet was submitted and could not have been submitted for an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act by the District Police, rather the charge sheet was submitted under Section 386, 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, still the court passed an order that he has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter relating to release of the vehicles. 12. Under the circumstances, this case was filed for release of the 7 vehicles including two Pocklain Machines as well as 13 vehicles. 13. It does appear that earlier an order was passed with respect to release of 7 vehicles but those vehicles according to the petitioners, could not be released as the petitioner no.1, who is in custody, could not present himself before the police official for getting the vehicles released in spite of the release order being issued by the court below. 14. Under the circumstances, those 7 vehicles, bearing registration nos. 14. Under the circumstances, those 7 vehicles, bearing registration nos. JH-05AD-8172, JH-05AD-8127, JH-015AF-8712, JH-05AD-8721, JH-22AO-441 including two Pocklain Machines PC 200 excavators be released in favour of Mritunjay Kumar, son of Harinarayan Choudhary on filing affidavit before the court below regarding authorization being given by the petitioner no.1 and on filing of the surety bond of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lacs) each with one surety of the like amount for each of the vehicle to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Sidgora P.S case no.6 of 2012 and also on filing an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner no.1 that he will abide by the order passed by the Calcutta High Court and that those vehicles would be produced whenever it shall be required to be produced. 15. Release order issued by the court below shall be abide by the Officer-in-Charge of the police station wherever the seized vehicles had been kept in the custody. 16. Further 13 vehicles be released in favour of the persons who had filed affidavits claiming ownership of the vehicles on furnishing separate affidavit regarding he being the registered owner before the court below and on production of the document relating to ownership of the vehicles and on furnishing surety bond of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lacs) each with one surety of the like amount for each of the vehicle to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Sidgora P.S case no.6 of 2012 on giving undertaking that whenever it shall be required by the court, the same would be produced. 17. This application is disposed of.