Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 566 (GUJ)

Kamlesh Ramabhai Mevada v. State of Gujarat

2020-06-19

ASHUTOSH J.SHASTRI

body2020
ORDER : 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs: “(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and to quash and set aside the impugned order dated April 10, 2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra, in Criminal Revision Application No. 1 of 2018, and further be pleased to order to release the vehicle of the petitioner being EECO car bearing registration No. GJ-01-RC-6547 forthwith, on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. (B) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated April 10, 2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra, in Criminal Revision Application No. 1 of 2018 and further be pleased to order to release the vehicle of the petitioner being EECO car bearing registration No. GJ-01-RC-6547 forthwith, on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. (C) Be pleased to dispense with the affidavit since the petitioner is in judicial custody. (D) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is residing at the address shown in the cause title. That his 3 daughters and a son all are minor. An FIR was lodged at Dhrangadhra Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 147, 148, 149, 120-B of IPC read with Section 135 of the GP Act bearing registration No. CR No. I-69 of 2017. 3. In connection with this offence, when the petitioner came to be arrested on 15.7.2017, a vehicle EECO car bearing Registration No. GJ-01-RC-6547 was of the ownership of petitioner, also came to be detained and seized, allegedly to have been utilized in commission of this crime. 4. For the purpose of release of this muddamal car, an application came to be submitted by the present petitioner in November, 2017 which came to be rejected vide order dated 17.1.2018. It appears from the record that feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, Criminal Misc. 4. For the purpose of release of this muddamal car, an application came to be submitted by the present petitioner in November, 2017 which came to be rejected vide order dated 17.1.2018. It appears from the record that feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2018 came to be filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra, who, by virtue of an order dated 10.4.2018, was pleased to reject the same and it is this orders which have given rise of filing of present application. 5. Pursuant to the Rule having been issued by the Court vide order dated 7.5.2019, the present petition has come up for consideration before this Court. 6. Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that in this case, the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the case has been committed. As a result of this, keeping this car in seizure would rather destroy the vehicle itself and ultimately if the case if over, by that time the car will be in such a condition that the same will not be utilized at all. It has been submitted that undisputedly, the present car which is registered is belonging to the petitioner and there are adequate documents including registration certificate with RC Book have been produced on record undisputedly indicating that the car is registered in the name of the present petitioner. By relying upon one of the decisions delivered by the coordinate bench on 19.7.2018, a request is made that the vehicle in question be released in favour of the petitioner, of-course with some suitable condition, for which the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the same. Certain relevant observations are pressed into service while making this request. 7. As against this, learned APP has submitted that no doubt, the case has been committed after submission of charge-sheet but, still, FSL report has not been received and this EECO car has undisputedly been used in commission of crime and additionally, if the vehicle in question is released in favour of petitioner, same would seriously prejudice the case of the prosecution. Apart from that, learned APP has further requested that both the courts below have found that the car in question is not required to be released in favour of the petitioner. Apart from that, learned APP has further requested that both the courts below have found that the car in question is not required to be released in favour of the petitioner. So, even if the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle, the same is insignificant. Accordingly, a request is made to dismiss the petition. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material place on record, it appears from the order of both the courts below that the vehicle in question is registered in the name of present petitioner and the ownership in question appears to be not in dispute. The request appears to be turned down mainly on the ground that a serious crime is committed and further, with respect to this muddamal, FSL report has yet not been received by the trial court and the other co-accused persons are to be arrested. However, this Court is mainly concerned with an issue as to whether during the pendency of the criminal case, whether the vehicle is to be released in favour of registered owner or not and for this purpose, the Court is having an assistance of detailed decision delivered by the coordinate bench dated 19.7.2018 passed in Special Criminal Application No. 4996 of 2018. Since the Court has relied upon this judgment, the following observations contained in Para-14 are quoted hereinafter: “14. Here, it would be worthwhile to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in the decision in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), which read as under: “15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time. 16. 16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons. 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, 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. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” 17. The Apex Court has, thus, directed that within a period of six months from the date of production of the vehicle before the Court concerned, needful be done. It even went to the extent of directing that where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or the third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. It also directed that before handing over possession of such vehicle, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and a detailed panchnama should also be prepared. The Apex Court also held and specifically directed that concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for ascertaining that powers under Section 451 of the Code are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. It, therefore, directed that this object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.” 9. It, therefore, directed that this object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.” 9. In view of aforesaid circumstance and in view of the fact that since the present petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions which may be imposed upon by this Court, the Court is inclined to grant the relief as prayed for in the petition. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The authorities concerned are directed to release the vehicle of the ownership of the present petitioner being EECO car bearing Registration No. GJ-01-RC-6547 on following terms and conditions that the petitioner shall: (1) furnish the surety in terms of bond of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and a bank guarantee of the equivalent amount. (2) file an undertaking before the trial court that till conclusion of the trial, without seeking prior permission of the Court concerned, there shall be no selling, transferring or alienating or handing over of vehicle in question in any mode to any third party. (3) also file an undertaking to produce the vehicle in question as and when directed by the trial court. 10. Before handing over the possession of the vehicle in question to the petitioner, necessary photographs shall be taken and a detailed panchnama in that regard shall also be drawn for the purpose of trial. Necessary videography of the condition of the vehicle in question also shall be done and expenses towards the same, shall be borne by the petitioner. 11. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking to be placed on record of the file within a period of 10 days from today to the effect that the petitioner shall scrupulously observe and continue to follow the conditions, upon which the vehicle is handed over temporarily till the trial is over. 12. With aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolutely to the aforesaid extent. 13. The Registry is directed to communicate this order by FAX and/or e-mail to the trial court concerned, forthwith.