Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1016 (JHR)

Uday Prasad @ Udal Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2014-10-08

P.P.BHATT

body2014
JUDGMENT At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is a typographical mistake in the name of the petitioner, and therefore, he may be permitted to carry out correction in the cause title of the petition as “Uday Prasad @ Udal Prasad” as it reveals from the documents collectively annexed vide Annexure -2. 2. Permission, as sought for, is granted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall carry out the necessary amendment in the cause title of this petition accordingly during the course of the day. 4. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 6.2.2014 passed in Ramgarh P.S. Case No.231 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.2795 of 2013, whereby the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, rejected the application filed by the petitioner on 18.10.2013 for release of the Pick-up Van bearing Registration No.JH02Y-5227. The brief facts of the present case, are as under : 5. That, the Officer Incharge of Ramgarh Police Station, on the basis of secret information received regarding transportation of illegal Pora Coal (soft coal) in the Pick-up Van bearing Registration No.JH02Y-5227, they started checking the vehicles, and during the course of checking exercise, the petitioner's vehicle was intercepted and the driver of the said vehicle could not produce any document with regard to the coal, which was being transported in the said vehicle, and therefore, the pora coal (soft coal) as well as the vehicle was seized and the Seizure List was prepared and the driver was arrested. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has produced the relevant documents such as, Road Permit, Tax Token, Certificate of Registration, etc., in respect of the vehicle in question to show that he is the lawful owner of the vehicle and is ready and willing to furnish the surety as may be deemed fit and proper by the Court, however, the learned court below, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case rejected the prayer made by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in similar set of facts, in a petition filed by one Sri Kiran Yadav vide Cr. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in similar set of facts, in a petition filed by one Sri Kiran Yadav vide Cr. M.P. No. 832 of 2013, the co-ordinating Bench of this Court, vide order dated 9.7.2013, passed an order to release the seized vehicle on furnishing surety of the like amount. It is further submitted that in the said case also, the pora coal (soft coal) was transported in the vehicle, which was seized, and therefore, the rejection order passed on the ground of initiation of confiscation proceedings was unjustified. It is further submitted that in the present case also, the pora coal (soft coal) was seized along with the vehicle, and therefore, on similar footing, the prayer has been made for release of the vehicle. 7. Learned A.P.P appearing for the State opposed the prayer for release of the vehicle and has submitted that the driver of the vehicle tried to run away when the police were inspecting the vehicle, and therefore, the police had to chase and caught the driver and seized the vehicle containing 150 Bags (about three tons) of pora coal (soft coal). Therefore, it is submitted that looking to the seriousness of the offence, since investigation is still under progress, the prayer for release of the vehicle, at this juncture, may be rejected. The learned A.P.P appearing for the State also tried to distinguish on the facts from the case which has been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the petitioner has prayed for release of the vehicle which was seized by the police. It further appears that the vehicle in question was used for the purpose of transporting the pora coal (soft coal). It also appears that the petitioner is a lawful owner of the Pick-up Van bearing Registration No.JH02Y-5227 and in support thereof he has produced the copy of Road Permit, Tax-Token, Certificate of Fitness and Certificate of Registration collectively vide Annexure-2. The investigation by now is substantially over. It also appears that the petitioner is a lawful owner of the Pick-up Van bearing Registration No.JH02Y-5227 and in support thereof he has produced the copy of Road Permit, Tax-Token, Certificate of Fitness and Certificate of Registration collectively vide Annexure-2. The investigation by now is substantially over. The petitioner has also produced the copy of the order passed in Cr.M.P. No. 832 of 2013 vide Annexure -3 to show that in similar set of facts and circumstances the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order to release the vehicle on furnishing surety of the like amount. 9. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and also in view of the precedent referred above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's vehicle ( Pick-up Van) bearing Registration No.JH02Y-5227, which was seized in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.231 of 2013 (G.R. No.2795 of 2013), deserves to be released. 10. Accordingly, this Cr. Misc. Petition is allowed and the order dated 6.2.2014 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Ramgarh P.S. Case No.231 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.2795 of 2013, is, hereby, ordered to be set aside, and the petitioner's vehicle (Pick-up Van) bearing Registration No.JH02Y-5227, is, hereby, ordered to be released, on furnishing bond of Rs.4 Lakhs (Rupees Four Lakhs), with one surety of the like amount and on giving an undertaking that whenever it shall be required, the same would be produced before the court below.