Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 383 (UTT)

Vinod Kumar Alias Dampi v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-07

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioner challenges the order dated 18th July, 2020, passed in application no. 558 of 2020, State vs. Vinod and others, by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. By this order, an application for the release of the vehicle was dismissed for non maintainability. 2. Facts briefly stated are that in FIR No. 520 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 212A,394, 412 and 34 IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar two motor cycles bearing registration nos. UK18 C 5324 and UK 18 J 0431 were taken into custody. In the concerned FIR, charge-sheet has already been submitted and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions for trial on 4th February, 2020. 3. The petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicles in the Sessions Court which was rejected on 18th June, 2020 with the observation that such an application may be maintainable before the Court of Magistrate. Petitioner, thereafter, approached the court of Magistrate, who, on 18th July, 2020, by the impugned order observed that since the case has already been committed, therefore, the Magistrate cannot decide the application for release of the vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application of the petitioner for release of the vehicles has not been entertained by both the courts below, namely, court of Sessions and court of Magistrate, therefore, the vehicle may now be released. 5. On behalf of the State it is argued that the impugned order is not illegal, instead the petitioner ought to have challenged the order of Sessions Court, by which, his application was not entertained. 6. Be it as it may, a vehicle, should not be kept in police custody for an indefinite period. Whatever inspection etc. is to be done, that should be done at the earliest. Needless to say, maintaining of the vehicle and other aspects are also to be taken care of. 7. This Court is of the view that without adverting as to in which court the application should be maintainable and keeping this legal issue open, this court considers that the petition should be allowed and the concerned court of Magistrate should be directed to release the vehicles subject to the conditions as may be deemed necessary. 8. The petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18th July, 2020 is set aside. 8. The petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18th July, 2020 is set aside. The court of Magistrate concerned is directed to release the vehicles in favour of its lawful owner subject to conditions as may be necessary.