Jharkhand High Court
Md. Firoz Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 836 of 2020
.......
Md. Firoz Alam .... ....Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand .... ....Opp. Party
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
.......
For the Petitioner : - Mr. K. S. Nanda, Adv.
For the State : - Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
.....
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties
had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities were good.
........
05/03.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
The instant criminal revision petition has been filed for setting aside the
order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Misc.
Criminal Application No. 16/2020 and for release of the Atul (Passenger) vehicle
of the petitioner bearing Registration No. JH 07J-5750 in connection with Gumla
P. S. Case No. 409 of 2019 corresponding to NDPS Case No. 02 of 2020 for the
offence registered under Section 27(b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and
Section 21 (a) of the NDPS Act .
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court
below has misguided himself while disposing the application under Section 451 of
the Cr. P. C. It has been submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle
and as per Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which has been explained by
the Apex Court in its judgment rendered in the case Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay
Kumar and Ors. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 1 to the effect that the registered owner
is the owner of the vehicle. Further referring to the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in
2002 (10) SCC 283, it has been submitted that vehicle should not be kept in police
station as the same is the national loss. It has been submitted that for protecting the
evidentiary value of the vehicle, panchnama etc. may be prepared and for
protecting the power of confiscation, the owner of the vehicle may be bounded by
necessary indemnity bond, solvent security etc. On the above submission, prayer
for release has been made.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and
it has been submitted that the vehicle in question was involved in the commission
of offence under the NDPS Act and as such, vehicle should not be released.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records
and the judgments cited above, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has
committed error by rejecting prayer of release of the vehicle on the ground that the
vehicle is involved in the commission of crime as this cannot be a ground for non
release of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Cr. P. C.
In view of the above discussion made, the order dated 03.09.2020 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Misc. Criminal Application No. 16/2020
is, hereby, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned court below
to pass an appropriate order within two weeks from the date of receipt/production
of a copy of this order. The court below is at liberty to verify the necessary
documents and imposed necessary conditions as per the requirement of law.
With the above observations and directions, the instant criminal revision
stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Kamlesh/
