Jharkhand High Court
Sangita Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2618 of 2021
Sangita Devi ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. B.N. Ojha, A.P.P.
------
04/ 09.05.2022 Heard Mr. Nishant Roy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. B.N. Ojha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
04.07.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra, in S.T. Case
No. 83 of 2020, arising out of Gidhour P.S. Case No. 99 of 2019, whereby
the learned court has been pleased to reject the prayer for release of the
three wheeler vehicle (Tempo) of the petitioner, bearing Registration No.
JH-13-F-7390, now pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge,
Chatra.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
vehicle in question has been registered in the name of the petitioner and
husband of this petitioner has used the aforesaid tempo in the crime and
that's why the learned Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for
release of the said vehicle in question.
4. Mr. B.N. Ojha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits
that the husband of this petitioner has murdered the deceased and he has
used the aforesaid vehicle in question in transporting her dead body and
said vehicle is the material exhibit in the Court below.
5. In view of such submissions of learned counsel for the parties,
the Court has gone through the materials available on record. The learned
Sessions Judge, Chatra has rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle in
question on the ground that the said vehicle was used in transporting the
dead body of the deceased. Section 451 of Cr.P.C. speaks of order for
custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. When any
property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or
trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper
custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial,
and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is
otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such
evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed
of.
6. The vehicle in question is commercial one and no useful
purpose will be served to keep such vehicle at the police station for a long
period in the open space. This aspect of the matter has been considered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
Versus State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. Paragraphs 16
and 17 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:-
"16. However, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners submitted that this question of
handing over vehicles to the person from whom
it is seized or to its true owner is always a
matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are
advanced by the concerned persons.
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."
7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussions, the order
dated 04.07.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra, in S.T.
Case No. 83 of 2020, arising out of Gidhour P.S. Case No. 99 of 2019,
whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the prayer for release
of the three wheeler vehicle (Tempo) of the petitioner, bearing
Registration No. JH-13-F-7390, now pending in the court of learned
Sessions Judge, Chatra, is hereby, quashed.
8. The vehicle, in question shall be released in favour of the
petitioner on her undertakings on the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall furnish 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 Chatra (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) She shall not change or tamper with the identification
of the vehicle in question in any manner.
(v) She shall produce the vehicle in question as and when
directed by the Trial Court.
9. The trial court is at liberty to impose any other terms and
conditions which the trial Court deems fit and proper.
10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
