Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 131 (MP)

Sukhram v. State of M. P.

2014-01-28

G.S.SOLANKI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The applicant has filed this petition under section 379/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by order dated 28.11.2012 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Special Case No.2/2012, whereby the application filed by the applicant under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition in short are that the applicant is registered owner of motorcycle No.MP15-MF-2184, which is said to have been used in transportation of 9 Kg and 200 grams contraband/Ganja by accused Ballu alias Balram and Shailendra. They are facing trial before IV Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar under section 8/20(b)(ii)(a) read with section 27A and section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant has filed an application under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the aforesaid vehicle on his Supurdginama but the same has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that trial would take considerable time to conclude. If the aforesaid vehicle remains at the Police Station for indefinite period, that will be ruined, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and further prays for order of Supurdginama in favour of the applicant. He has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Khalil Ahmad Ansari v. State of M.P., 2000(I) MPWN 217. 4. Learned counsel for the State has formally objected the prayer. 5. I have perused the impugned order and other material. It is true that the conveyance carrying contraband is liable to confiscation under the NDPS Act, but that does not mean that the vehicle can be allowed to remain at the police station for indefinite period during the trial. The trial may take considerable time and it would be proper to release the vehicle on Supurdginama. In these circumstances, trial Court committed error in passing the impugned order. The same is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The petition is allowed. 6. The trial Court is directed to release the vehicle No.MP-15-MF 2148 to the applicant/registered owner subject to furnishing the supardginama of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) to the satisfaction of the concerning Court with the following condition that: (i) appellant will produce the aforesaid vehicle as and when required by the trial Court. The petition is allowed. 6. The trial Court is directed to release the vehicle No.MP-15-MF 2148 to the applicant/registered owner subject to furnishing the supardginama of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) to the satisfaction of the concerning Court with the following condition that: (i) appellant will produce the aforesaid vehicle as and when required by the trial Court. (ii) appellant will not transfer of alienate the aforesaid, vehicle to any one during trial of criminal case; and (iii) he will also not change the color of the vehicle during the pendency of the criminal case. Pramod Singh Tomar for applicant,