High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176990 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36535 of 2024 Applicant :- Sudhakar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akansha Verma,Deepak Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Legal Reasoning
"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. 18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by 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 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 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." 7. In this conspectus, as above, I am of the considered view that the present application is liable to be entertained and the release of tractor in question being Registration No. UP 77 AC 6014 will not impede the further proceedings in the Criminal case arising out of the Case Crime No.0237/2024 dated 11.6.2024. Therefore, for the safety of the tractor so that it could be utilised by its owner and same may be produced at the time of trial, in case required, is liable to be released. 8. As such, the instant application succeeds and is allowed. Order impugned dated 18.9.2024 passed by 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Kanpur Dehat, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 502 of 2024 (Sudhakar Singh Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 237 of 2024 is quashed. 9. Learned court concerned is hereby directed to release the aforesaid vehicle with the following conditions: (i) Applicant shall produce the original registration certificate, insurance paper before the concerned Police Station which shall be verified properly and true attested copies thereof. (ii) Applicant shall execute a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two solvent sureties of equal amount. (iii) Applicant shall keep the vehicle insured at all times till the conclusion of the trial and produce the Insurance Certificate before the Trial Court as and when required. (iv) Applicant shall not change the colour or any part of the engine and chassis number of the vehicle, without prior permission of the court concerned. (v) Applicant shall produce the vehicle either before the Court or before such other authorities as the Court may direct. (vi) Applicant will not transfer the vehicle to anybody else nor possession of the same be parted with until disposal of the case. (vii) Applicant shall not allow the vehicle to be used in the commission of any offence. Order Date :- 12.11.2024/vkg
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order 18.9.2024 passed by 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Kanpur Dehat whereby release application dated 2.9.2024 moved on behalf of the present applicant (first informant) for release of his tractor with trolley, being Registration No. UP 77 AC - 6014, has been rejected. 3. Facts culled out from the record are that an FIR has been lodged on the direction issued by court concerned in an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the present applicant. As per the FIR version, on the date of occurrence of offence dated 7.5.2024 at about 8 P.M., while he went to another village in search of labour, his neighbor (accused) alongwith three accomplices barged into the house of the first informant and took away valuable jewelry worth Rs. two lakhs and a tractor alongwith a trolley which was loaded with 30 packets of wheat and chaff. In the aforesaid matter, after due investigation, Investigation Officer has submitted a charge sheet dated 23.8.2024 under Sections 352 & 504 IPC. Admittedly, the tractor has been seized by the police and same is parked at the police station. After recovery of the tractor, the present applicant has moved an application dated 2.9.2024 supported by an affidavit for the release of his tractor in question. However, said application has been rejected by the court concerned, vide order dated 18.9.2024, on the ground that the tractor is important evidence for the purposes of disposal of the case, therefore, release of the tractor during trial would impede the criminal proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the ownership of the present applicant over the tractor in question being Registration No. UP 77 AC 6014 is not disputed and no other person has come forward to claim ownership on it. During the pendency of the trial, the tractor should be protracted from its being deterioration, therefore, it should be released in favour of the present applicant in the light of the ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638. 5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and contended that till the pendency of trial the tractor in question may be detained. 6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perusal of record, it is manifested that FIR, being Case Crime No.0237/2024 dated 11.6.2024, has been lodged on behalf of the present applicant with an allegation of house trespass and robbery. Tractor alongwith trolley, as mentioned in FIR, has been recovered by the Police. Although the police has set up a theory that, as per understanding between the parties, the tractor alongwith trolley was parked at the Bharat Petroleum Pump of proprietor Rohit Singh, however, same has been taken to the police station and at present vehicle in question is parked at the police station. Thus, admittedly, the tractor in question alongwith the trolley is in the custody of the police and the court is the custodia legis of the aforesaid vehicle which is lying unattended at the police station in vulnerable condition. Over the passage of time there is a likelihood of its deterioration and the non maintenance of the vehicle would not serve any purpose in the decision of the criminal case which has been instituted at the behest of the present applicant with an allegation that his vehicle alongwith tractor trolley loaded with 30 bags of wheat and chaff has been robbed from his house. Police has recovered only the tractor and the trolley attached to it, however, there is no information regarding the recovery of 30 bags of wheat and chaff as averred in the FIR. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has given a lame excuse in rejecting the release application moved on behalf of the present applicant. Even assuming that the tractor in question is required for the purposes of final decision in the criminal case, same can be called for at any stage of trial in case it is required by the court concerned. Detaining the tractor at the police station, which has become case property, would not fulfill any purpose, and releasing the same during pendency of the trial would not impede the proceedings. Conversely, in case tractor is not released, the present applicant, who is the owner of the tractor, would suffer financial loss. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) has already issued a direction for release of vehicles and other vulnerable goods which are case property. The court, being a custodian legis, has a solemn duty to protect the case properly during the trial. The relevant paragraphs of the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) is quoted herein below: