Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1559 (JHR)

Babu Pillay v. State of Jharkhand

2016-11-21

ANANDA SEN

body2016
ORDER : Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has 95challenged the order dated 01.09.2015, passed by the S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 25/2015, by which the S.D.J.M., has dismissed the application of the petitioner for release of the Vehicle bearing Registration No. JH05AT3561 (LMV Jeep Model No. XUV 500). Further prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 13.10.2015, passed in Cr. Revision No. 30/2015 by the Sessions Judge, Chaibasa upholding the order dated 01.09.2015, passed by the S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa. 3. It appears that a first information report was registered for commission of the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code being Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 14/2014 (G.R. No. 25/2015), alleging therein that Railway materials worth Rs. 3 lakhs were looted from the Godown/Store. The Petitioner has been made one of the accused in the said case. It is alleged that one vehicle bearing Registration No. JH05AT3561 (LMV Jeep Model No. XUV 500) having Engine No. HJC4N74875, was used in commission of dacoity by this petitioner and his associates. 4. The petitioner claiming to be the registered owner of the said vehicle, applied for release of the vehicle in his favour, which was seized by the police during investigation. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle is registered in the name of this petitioner and now after its seizure, is lying in open space at the police station and its condition is deteriorating day by day. He further submits that there is no use of detaining the vehicle for an indefinite period and he is ready and willing to abide with all the terms and condition, so imposed, for release of the vehicle. 6. Learned additional P.P. submits that the vehicle would be required at the time of evidence as it is a material exhibit and it is quite possible that the petitioner may sell or transfer the ownership of the said vehicle. 7. 6. Learned additional P.P. submits that the vehicle would be required at the time of evidence as it is a material exhibit and it is quite possible that the petitioner may sell or transfer the ownership of the said vehicle. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai versus State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283” has given certain guidelines as to how to deal with the seized valuable articles, currency notes, vehicles and other materials, which are the subject matter of seizure during a criminal proceeding. In respect of seized vehicles, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is of no use to keep such 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. 8. In the instant case, the vehicle, in question, has been seized pursuant to Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 14/2014 (G.R. No. 25/2015). The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle. It is undisputed that the vehicle, after seizure, is kept in the open space at police station. If the vehicle is kept in open space for an indefinite period, its condition will certainly deteriorate and with gradual passage of time will become a scrap. 9. In view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai”, the order dated 01.09.2015, passed by the S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa as well as the order dated 13.10.2015, passed by the Sessions Judge, Chaibasa are hereby set aside and quashed. The trial court is directed to release the vehicle, in question, in favour of the petitioner subject to the conditions that: (I) the Court below shall verify the ownership as well as the other documents of the vehicle such as fitness certificate, insurance certificate etc. and will keep a copy of the said documents. (II) the photographs of the vehicle from all angles should also be taken and kept on record before its release. (III) the petitioner shall not sell or transfer the ownership of the vehicle, in question, to any one till the disposal of the criminal case. and will keep a copy of the said documents. (II) the photographs of the vehicle from all angles should also be taken and kept on record before its release. (III) the petitioner shall not sell or transfer the ownership of the vehicle, in question, to any one till the disposal of the criminal case. (IV) the petitioner will also not change the colour or registration number of the said vehicle and will produce the vehicle as and when required by the trial court and to that effect he will furnish a declaration before the trial court. 10. This declaration alongwith the copy of this order with necessary affidavits will be forwarded to the District Transport Officer, Chakradharpur with whom the said vehicle is registered, for keeping a record so that the vehicle cannot be transferred. 11. It is open for the trial court to fix the amount of sureties bond and the other conditions but he will not insist for bank guarantee or cash sureties. 12. The Court below is directed to take appropriate steps against the petitioner if any of the conditions is violated by him. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application stands allowed.