Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2022
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1716 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1716 of 2022
Manoj Kumar Mandal, aged about 47 years, son of Ruplal Mandal, resident
of Village & Post- Jhagrahi, P.S. Sarath, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand
... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, S.P.P.
-----
05/18.11.2022. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.04.2022
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar in Misc.
Criminal Application No.37 of 2022 arising out of Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case
No.114 of 2021, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release
of his vehicle bearing registration no. JH-15B-3791 (Polar White Next Gen
Verna Hyundai, Engine No.G4FLMV249147, Chassis No.
MALC841GLMM308646), which was seized from the house of the petitioner
on 19.12.2021, has been rejected and the matter is pending before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge (Cyber Crime),
Deoghar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis
of confidential information received on 18.12.2021 with regard to
cyber crime by Sanjay Lal, Dinanath Mandal, Jitendra Mirdha and
Shailesh Das, the policed raided several places and son of the petitioner
(owner of vehicle) was also arrested. He further submits that there is
no role of the seized car in the alleged crime. He also submits that the
car in question was purchased after taking loan of Rs.6 Lakhs from
Axis Bank, Deoghar. He further submits that the learned court has
rejected the prayer for release of the said vehicle on the ground that in
case any of the victims want to seek civil remedy against the petitioner
for claiming the stolen money then this car can be attached by the
competent court.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Shalendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel
for the State submits that the son of this petitioner was accused in
several cyber crime cases. The dispute is with regard to the amount
in question, which has been cheated from the innocent person. He also
submits that the car in question has been purchased from the
cheated amount and cyber crime. He further submits that there is
no illegality in the impugned order. The vehicle in question cannot be
directed to be released.
4. In view of the above facts and submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the
record. It has come in the impugned order that the total cost of the vehicle
in question on road is approximately Rs.11 Lakhs and the amount of
Rs.6 Lakhs has been financed with Axis Bank and EMIs are being paid by
the petitioner. What has been argued by the learned counsel for the State,
that will be the matter of trial. Moreover, to allow to deteriorate the vehicle
in question to stand in the premises of the police station will not serve the
purpose. A reference in this regard may be made to the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of
Gujarat; [(2002) 10 SCC 283] . Paragraphs 5 and 17 of the said
judgment read as under:
"5. Section 451 clearly empowers the court to pass
appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as:
(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the
inquiry or trial;
(2) to order it to be said or otherwise disposed of, after
recording such;
(3) If the property is subject to speedy and natural
decay, the dispose of the same.
xxx xxx xxx
"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."
5. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the order dated
06.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar in
Misc. Criminal Application No.37 of 2022 arising out of Deoghar Cyber P.S.
Case No.114 of 2021, pending in the court of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge (Cyber Crime), Deoghar is, hereby, set
aside. The vehicle in question 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 learned lower court.
(ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a vehicle of
District- Deoghar (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.
6. The aforesaid conditions are the subject to the final result of the
confiscation proceeding and the criminal proceedings.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this criminal
miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
