Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 65 (MP)

Arshad Hussain v. State of M. P.

2023-01-12

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2023
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under 482 of the Cr.P.C against the order dated 18.2.2022 passed by the Special Additional Judge, NDPS Act Ratlam in MJCR.No.91/2022 arising out of Crime No.114/2021 under section 8,20,18,25 and 27 of the NDPS Act; whereby, the petitioner’s application under Section 451/457 of the Cr.PC to obtain his Hyundai Creta Car bearing registration No.MP 04 CQ 8343, has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the aforesaid Crime No.114/2021 has been registered on 25.2.2021, against Abdul Salam and Rakesh Kumar Rathore, who were travelling in the aforesaid car and on searching a bag containing Rs.4,50,000/- was found and also 590 grams of cannabis (Ganja) which was screwed under the partition plate near the silencer and a country made pistol with 5 live rounds was also found. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in the aforesaid case, he has not been made an accused and the other two persons namely Abdul Salam and Rakesh Kumar Rathore have been subsequently made accused and another person Mohd.Irfan Aka Lala S/o Yonus Khan was also made an accused but till date the charge sheet has not been filed. 4. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that since the car seized by the police on 25.2.2021, is still lying with the respondent/police station, the applicant preferred an application under section 451/ 457 of the Cr.P.C as registered owner of the vehicle before the trial court. The trial Court, vide order dated 18.2.2022 has rejected the application filed by the applicant on the ground, that the earlier application has already been dismissed by the said Court on 10.8.2021 and there is no change in circumstance and also that the investigation is still pending. 5. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the petitioner’s vehicle has been unnecessarily withheld in the aforesaid offence despite the fact that the petitioner himself has not been made an accused and no purpose would be served to allow the vehicle to be exposed in harsh weather as on account of its disuse, its parts would also stop working due to rust. Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that it has already been more than one and half years since the vehicle of the petitioner has been kept in custody of the respondent and thus, deserves to be released. 6. Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that it has already been more than one and half years since the vehicle of the petitioner has been kept in custody of the respondent and thus, deserves to be released. 6. Counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer and submitted that no case for interference is made out as the investigation is still pending. 7. On due consideration of the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of the case diary present with the counsel for the respondent/State, it is found that it is not denied that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized on 25.2.2021, and till date the investigation has not been completed, and in such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, further requirement of the vehicle by the investigation agency does not appear to be necessary, especially when there is no objection on the part of the prosecution as to why the vehicle would be necessary, this Court finds force with the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner and is inclined to allow the present petition.. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.2.2022 is hereby set aside and the application filed under section 451/457 of Cr.P.C by the applicant is here by allowed. It is directed that on petitioner’s furnishing adequate surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the vehicle shall be returned back to the petitioner on supurdgi. 9. Needless to say, the vehicle so obtained by the petitioner on supurdgi shall not be transferred in any manner and no alteration shall be made in it without the prior permission of the trial Court and it shall be produced before the trial Court as and when directed. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition stands allowed and disposed of.