Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4 (MP)

Brijesh Singh v. State of M. P.

2018-01-02

SUSHIL KUMAR PALO

body2018
ORDER 1. Challenge has been made to order dated 12.10.2017, passed by the ASJ, Sidhi, in Criminal Revision No. 149/2017, wherein the application for release of the vehicle under section 457 of the CrPC has been rejected on 21.9.2017 by the learned JMFC, was affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on the basis of the informer, Police Kotwali, Sidhi, followed and apprehended Vehicle Tata 407, bearing registration No. MP-53-GA-0428 for illegally carrying sand Crime No.735/2017 for offence under sections 379 and 414 of the IPC, sections 4 and 21 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 3 and 4 of the Public Representation Act, section 15 of the Environment Protection Act and sections 41, 26 and 51 of the Indian Forest Act, have been registered. 3. The petitioner moved an application for release of the vehicle before the JMFC, Sidhi, under section 457 of the CrPC and the same was registered as MJC No. 163/2017 and was refused on 21.9.2017. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner Brijesh Singh preferred Criminal Revision No. 149/2017 before the First ASJ, Sidhi. By the impugned order, the learned ASJ, dismissed the application for release of the vehicle. 4. The petitioner has filed registration certificate Annexure A-2, Aadhar Card of the petitioner and Annexure A-3, the permit for transportation of sand from 9.9.2017 to 15.9.2017 by Vehicle No. MP-53-GA-0428. 5. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the petitioner was transporting sand on the basis of the permit issued Annexure A-3 from 9.9.2017 to 15.9.2017. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, the vehicle be released on supurdginama. The offence under sections 3 and 4 of the Public Representation Act as mentioned has no relevancy in the present case. It is stated that at on the order of Gram Panchayat Devghata, the said sand was being transported for construction of toilets. The petitioner claimed that he will abide by all the conditions. 6. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State has opposed the application. 7. If the vehicle is kept in an open place at the police station for long time, it will be subjected to damage and the petitioner will be put to loss. 8. The petitioner claimed that he will abide by all the conditions. 6. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State has opposed the application. 7. If the vehicle is kept in an open place at the police station for long time, it will be subjected to damage and the petitioner will be put to loss. 8. Keeping in view the above circumstances and following the law laid down in the cases of Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., reported as 2000(1) JLJ 304 =2000(1) MPLJ (FB) 289, State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao, reported as 2008(1) JLJ 427 = 2008(1) JT 364 , and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002)10 SCC 290], this petition is allowed. 9. It is directed that the Vehicle No. MP-53-GA-0428 be given to the petitioner on "Supurdginama" subject to production of the original registration certificate and insurance certificate. Accordingly, it is ordered that the vehicle bearing Registration No. MP-53-GA-0428 seized in connection Crime No. 735/2017 be given to the petitioner till the disposal of the case or the final disposal of the confiscation proceeding, if any, before the Forest Department, whichever is earlier on the following terms and conditions:- (i) That, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on an undertaking to produce the said vehicle before the trial Court as and when required. (ii) That, the applicant shall get the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number of the vehicle. Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer, who will be deputed by the trial Court and to be kept in the file of the case. (iii) That the personal bond of the petitioner as well as surety shall carry the photographs of both and the bond of surety shall further carry the photograph of person identifying him before the Court which would be with full residential proof of the surety and the person in defying him. (iv) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and shall not lease it to anyone and not make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable. (v) The petitioner will not allow the vehicle to be used any antisocial activities. (iv) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and shall not lease it to anyone and not make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable. (v) The petitioner will not allow the vehicle to be used any antisocial activities. (vi) In the event of confiscation order by the Court competent, the petitioner shall keep the vehicle present positively for confiscation. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court concerned for necessary compliance. Sanjay Singh for petitioner; C.K. Mishra, Government Advocate for respondent/State.