====================================================== 1. Md. Salim S/O Late Said Ali Resident Of Village- Yadav Nagar, P.O v. 1. The State Of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7573 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Md. Salim S/O Late Said Ali Resident Of Village- Yadav Nagar, P.O.- Aagloi, P.S. & District- Sahibganj (Jharkhand), At Present Residing At Kaharpara, P.S.- Barharwa, District- Sahibganj (Jharkhand) 2. Md. Nasir @ Md. Nasir Alam S/O Late Said Ali Resident Of Village- Yadav Nagar, P.O.- Aagloi, P.S. & District- Sahibganj (Jharkhand), At Present Residing At Kaharpara, P.S.- Barharwa, District- Sahibganj (Jharkhand) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Bhola Singh, son of Late Sahdeo Singh 3. The Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur 3. The Officer In charge of Pirpainty Police Station .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 5 13-05-2013 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha for the petitioners and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned APP for the State. Petitioners herein are two brothers. They are facing charge(s) of commission of dacoity in respect of a truck bearing registration mark and number BRIGA-0934. In course of investigation of the case one truck bearing registration mark and number WB-57B- 1107 was recovered in an abandoned condition and seized. The seizure memo is enclosed as annexure-2. Such seizure was made on 7.11.2012. The petitioners claim release thereof. 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7573 of 2013 (5) dt.13-05-2013 2 / 5 A counter affidavit on behalf of the Dy. S.P. (H.Q) Bhagalpur has been filed. Learned counsel submits that except the petitioners there is/are no claimant(s) till date of the aforesaid truck/vehicle including the insurance company. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 the Supreme Court held as under:- “18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the 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. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.” Relying on the copy of the certificate of registration 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7573 of 2013 (5) dt.13-05-2013 3 / 5 (Annexure-4), the goods carriages permit (Annexure-5), the tax token in respect of WB-57B- 1107 as well as the insurance document (part of Annexure-B) it has been submitted that there is/are diverse documents which would prima facie indicate that the petitioners are owners thereof. Even thereafter the learned trial court refused the prayer for the release of the said vehicle. It is next contended that in any case as per the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in diverse judgments such vehicle should not be allowed to be kept in dilapidated condition in police station which is not going to benefit anyone. He submits that in making a prayer for the release of the said vehicle the petitioners accept the factum of seizure thereof. No issue in respect thereof can be raised by the petitioners. Relying on the ratio laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (supra), it has been contended that the petitioners are although accused(s) but have documents to indicate that they are the owners thereof. The vehicle should be released on any condition to be imposed by this Court or by the trial court. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that a report was called for from the District Transport Officer, Brahampur (West Bengal). The DTO has reported that the seized vehicle is registered vide registration no. WB-57B-1107 in the name of the 4 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7573 of 2013 (5) dt.13-05-2013 4 / 5 two brothers (petitioners herein). However, there appears that a fake chassis number has been punched on the chassis of the vehicle. The name of the previous owner is not available on the records. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. The FIR was lodged in respect of truck bearing no. BRIGA-0934. The truck in question was seized from west Bengal having registration no. WB-57B- 1107. Admittedly, till date there is no claimant to the said truck except the petitioners. The petitioners have brought on record the copy of the registration certificate, the tax token, the insurance documents in order to show that the truck bears registration mark and no. WB-57B- 1107 which is registered in their names. In course of arguments, it has been submitted that only recently the tax in respect of the said truck has been paid by the petitioners. It also appears from the counter affidavit that relevant facts have already been collected and the report of the FSL is awaited. However, there is no denial that except the petitioners there is/are no other claimant(s) of the truck. Taking into account all these facts and the principles stated in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), this Court directs 5 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7573 of 2013 (5) dt.13-05-2013 5 / 5 release of the truck which was seized under seizure memo contained in annexure-2 in favour of the petitioners within ten working days from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order subject to the following conditions:- The petitioners will furnish an undertaking that they will not change the physical feature(s) of the truck in question and will produce the same before the court as and when called upon; the petitioners would also submit an indemnity bond as also bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (one lakh) before the release of the said truck. It is further observed that after such release if it is found that the report of FSL contradicts the case of the petitioners and/or any other person claims ownership and release thereof the trial court shall be at liberty to direct re-deposit/re-surrender of the said truck/vehicle and thereafter proceed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/-