Jharkhand High Court
Md. Rafique @ Mohammad Rafique vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 August, 2022
1 Cr.M.P. No. 776 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 776 of 2022
Md. Rafique @ Mohammad Rafique, S/o Late Md. Qurban, aged about 41
years, R/o Temple Road, Purana Bazaar, Near Shiv Mandir, Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad, P.S. Bank More, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Shadab Ansari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
-----
06/18.08.2022. Heard Mr. Md. Shadab Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.01.2022
passed in Criminal Revision No.45/2021 by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Giridih and for quashing the order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in M.C.A. No.1511/2021 in
Nimiaghat P.S. Case No.31/2021, whereby, the petition filed by the
petitioner for release of vehicle vide registration no. JH 10 CC-7351 (Maruti
Dzire VXI) was rejected. The further prayer is made to release to the said
vehicle.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now charge-sheet has
been submitted. He further submits that the vehicle in question was
allegedly used to carry the dead body. He also submits that no fruitful
purpose will be served if the vehicle is allowed to be deteriorated. He
further submits that the petitioner will not sale the vehicle in question and
produced the same before the trial court whenever such direction shall be
issued by the learned trial court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the vehicle was
used in crime which has come in the case diary. He submits that in that
view of the matter the trial court as well as the revisional court have not
released the vehicle in question.
5. Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. was the subject matter before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of
Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein Section 451 of the
Cr.P.C. was considered. Paragraphs 13, 17 and 18 of the said judgment are
quoted herein below:
"13. For this purpose, the court may follow the procedure of
recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided
under Section 451 CrPC. The bond and security should be
taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or
destroyed. The court should see that photographs of such
articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant,
accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is
handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the
court under Section 451 CrPC to impose any other appropriate
condition.
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 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."
6. From the revisional order, it transpires that the charge-sheet has been
submitted. The revisional court has observed that the petitioner is the
registered owner of the seized Maruti Swift Dzire bearing Registration No.
JH10CC-7351 and all the papers related to the said vehicle are valid and up-
to-date.
7. In view of the above facts and considering that no fruitful purpose will
be served if the vehicle stands in the premises of the police and day by day,
the same shall be deteriorated. Accordingly, the order dated 31.01.2022
passed in Criminal Revision No.45/2021 by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Giridih and the order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in M.C.A. No.1511/2021 in Nimiaghat
P.S. Case No.31/2021 are, hereby, quashed.
8. The said vehicle bearing Registration No. JH10CC-7351 shall be
released in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking on the following
terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond to the
satisfaction of the court below.
(ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a
commercial vehicle of District Giridih (Jharkhand).
(iii) That the petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the
ownership of the vehicle on hire purchase agreement or
mortgage or in any manner.
(iv) He shall not change or tamper with the identification of the
vehicle in any manner.
(v) He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial
Court or before the confiscating authority.
9. The aforesaid conditions are the subject to the final result of the
confiscation proceeding and the criminal proceedings.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition is allowed
and disposed of.
11. Since the petition has already been disposed of, I.A. No.7190 of 2022
has become infructuous.
12. Accordingly, I.A. No.7190 of 2022 stands dismissed as infructuous.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
