Uday @ Udy Kant Srivastava vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3103 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Cr. Revision No. 704 of 2023
Uday @ Udy Kant Srivastava             ... ...Petitioner
                    Versus
The State of Jharkhand                 ... ...Opp. Party
                    ---------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

For the Petitioner : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate.

: Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, Advocate.

: Ms. Saba Ali, Advocate.

For the State         : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P.
                      ---------
Order No. 05/ dated 23.08.2023

This Cr. Revision has been preferred on behalf of petitioner

against the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the learned

A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2923 of

2022, arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No. 82 of 2022, registered

under Sections 279/337/338/304(A) and 427 of I.P.C. whereby

the release for the vehicle of the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. The

petitioner is the authorized person on behalf of the registered

owner of the vehicle. The release application for the vehicle of

the petitioner has been rejected on this ground that the accused

has not been nabbed till date and he was not cooperating in the

investigation.

3. It is also further submitted that in this case the Claim

Petitions for the compensation were also filed and same have

been allowed and in compliance of the order compensation

amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/- and Rs. 6,00,000/- were

separately paid to the dependents of both the deceased. If the

vehicle is allowed to be detained in the Police Station concerned

its utility will be diminished and the petitioner who is the

registered owner of the same shall be deprived of the use of the

vehicle. The impugned order passed by the court-below is based

on perverse finding.

4. The learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the contentions

made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended

that as per police report which is Annexure No. 3 of this Cr.

Revision Petition. In para 9 it is stated that the driver of the

vehicle had fled away at the time of accident and he could not

be traced till date. If the vehicle was released in favour of the

registered owner, the appearance of the accused driver could

not be ensured.

5. The F.I.R. of this case was lodged by the informant Guhi

Ram Singh against the unknown with these allegations that on

20.04.2022 at 11 O' clock his son Deepak Kumar Singh and his

wife Dharmi Devi both had left the house by motorcycle No.

JH09AY 7118 from the house for Jaina More. After having

withdrawn the money from the Bank, they were going to the

elder daughter of the informant. In the meantime, one vehicle

No. JH10CD5799 (Bank Cash Van) which was being driven by

its driver rashly and negligently hit to the motorcycle of his son

whereby his son and wife both sustained grievous injuries and

both were declared dead in the Hospital and during

investigation the name of the driver Ramesh Prasad Sharma,

Shiv Shankar Bhagat, Ramji Rai, A.C Ghar, Ruben Munda all

the staff of Bank of India, Gomia Branch were also transpired.

6. The application for release of the vehicle was moved on

behalf of the petitioner. This application was rejected by the

court-below vide order dated 17.05.2022. The only ground of

rejection is that the owner of the vehicle was not cooperating in

the investigation and the driver of the vehicle will never appear

if the vehicle was released in favour of the petitioner.

7. In the F.I.R. itself the offending vehicle involved in the

accident is JH10CD5799. In the seizure memo which is at page

17 of this petition the offending vehicle is Bolero Camper Cash

Van bearing registration No. JH10CD5799, Engine

No.TNL4M79727, Chasis No. MAIRY2TNKL3M93132.

8. On behalf of the petitioner in supplementary affidavit the

Annexure No.4 is the registration certificate of the vehicle. The

registered owner of the vehicle JH10CD5799 bearing Engine

No.TNL4M79727, Chasis No. MAIRY2TNKL3M93132 is M/s

Security Engineers Pvt. Ltd. user Surendra Singh Rajput at

Asha Bhawan, Purliya Road Patel Nagar, Chas Bokaro.

9. Annexure No. 5 is the details of the Directors/Signatory

of the Company Usha Singh Rajput, Surendra Singh Rajput and

Gaurav Rajput Company Security Engineers Private Limited.

Page No. 9 is the letter issued by the Director of the Security

Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Director Usha Singh Rajput. In this letter

Mr. Udaykant Shrivastav has been authorised to initiate the

proceeding in any court of law on behalf of the Company for

release of the vehicle No. JH10CD5799. At page No. 11 is the

award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Case No. 87 of 2022

dated 21.06.2023 and at page No. 13 is the award passed in

Motor Accident Claims Case No. 86 of 2022 dated 21.06.2023

passed by the Principal District Judge cum Presiding Officer,

M.A.C.T., Bokaro.

10. The Police report received from the Police Station

concerned before the court-below is the Annexure No.3 of this

petition. In this report the involvement of the vehicle in accident

is admitted and it is also admitted that the vehicle was in the

custody of the Police Station concerned in the said offence and

it is also mentioned in this report that the driver of the vehicle

had not appeared and owner were not cooperating him in the

investigation and in para 3 it is also mentioned that the vehicle

involved was not required in the investigation.

11. In view of the documents which are being filed on behalf

the petitioner in support of the title of this vehicle and also

keeping in view of the report of the Police Station concerned and

also the award the passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal in the Claim Petitions, the court-below ought to have

released the vehicle reason being the vehicle cannot be

permitted to be detained in the Police Station concerned reason

being its utility would be diminished if detained in Police Station

concerned for an indefinite period and the petitioner would be

deprived of their valuable right to use the vehicle.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in Sunder Bhai Ambala

Desai vrs. State of Gujrat 2002 (10) SCC 283:

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 sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary;

(3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same.

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.

13. In view of the legal propositions as laid down by Hon'ble

Apex Court and also keeping in view the material on record, the

impugned order passed by the court-below needs interference.

Accordingly, this Cr. Revision deserves to be allowed.

14. This Cr. Revision is hereby allowed.

15. The matter is remitted back to the court-below to dispose

of the application for release of the vehicle afresh in accordance

with the observations given by this Court in this Judgment and

also in the light of the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court

in Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai vrs. State of Gujrat (supra).

(Subhash Chand, J.)

P.K.S.