Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 864 (JHR)

Mahesh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-28

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
Order The petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 20.03.2015 passed by Shri B. Bhagat, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chatra in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No.36 of 2014 instituted under Sections 379/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for release of his vehicle, has been rejected. 2. The prosecution case, which is based on the self-statement of S.I., Piparwar Police Station, in short, is that after getting some confidential information, he alongwith Police Officers visited Padaria forest at 5 a.m. and found some persons loading coal on two trucks bearing registration nos.JH-02L-1568 and JH-02N-2595. After seeing the police party, the persons loading coal tried to flee away but one person was apprehended, who disclosed his name as Suraj Kumar Singh and further disclosed that he is the driver of one of the vehicle JH-02L-1568 and also disclosed the name of another accused Bablu Khan but failed to disclose the name of another driver and owner of another vehicle. It is also alleged that 5 tones of coal was found to be loaded on each truck and almost 50 tones of coal was found to be stored there but on demand, no paper was produced. Whereafter, seizure list was prepared. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle has also been made accused in this case though the petitioner is innocent and has no connection with the alleged theft of coal. Learned counsel further submitted that the vehicle in question being a commercial vehicle was given to the driver and for his own gain, the driver had committed alleged offence and when the vehicle did not return his house he enquired and found that the same has been seized in the present case. It was also submitted that no purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in question in open space in Thana premise rather due to weathering effect there will be a lot of damages and there is also apprehension that the parts of vehicle will be removed. 4. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel representing the State opposed the prayer on the ground that as the investigation is at early stage, it would not be proper to release the truck without calling for a report from the Investigating Officer. 5. 4. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel representing the State opposed the prayer on the ground that as the investigation is at early stage, it would not be proper to release the truck without calling for a report from the Investigating Officer. 5. In a case Sunderbhai Ambala Versus State of Gujarat; (2002)10 SCC Page 283 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that commercial vehicles seized in respect of offence shall not be kept in custody for a very long period. In paragraph 17 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station 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.” 6. Apparently, the truck in question is lying in the open space of Police Station from the date of its seizure i.e. 06.06.2014. The vehicles are vulnerable to vagaries of nature and there is no doubt that if the same is not released there will be a lot of damages but at the same time it is apparent from the order impugned that investigation is at early stage and even no report has been called from the Investigation Officer regarding ownership of the vehicle. 7. Regard being had to the facts and circumstance stated above, the court below is directed to call for a report from the Investigating Officer regarding the ownership of the vehicle and after examining the report, if the court is satisfied that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner as an interim measure after taking adequate security including bank guarantee equal to the value of the vehicle in question and the court shall also take steps to make a Panchnama and photograph of the vehicle, which shall be kept on record for further use during proceedings, so that the trial may not be hampered. The owner of the vehicle would also give an undertaking that he would not dispose of the vehicle or alienate in any way during pendency of the case in court below and would produce the vehicle as and when required. If the petitioner violates any of the term of undertaking given by him and fails to produce the vehicle before the court, the authority shall be at liberty to forfeit the bank guarantee filed earlier in court. The release of the vehicle will be subject to appearance of the petitioner. 8. With these observations, this revision application is, hereby, allowed and the impugned order dated 20.03.2015 passed by Shri B. Bhagat, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chatra in G.R. Case No.648 of 2014 arising out of Piparwar P.S. Case No.36 of 2014 is, hereby, set aside.