Nilesh Yaduwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6607 MP

                                   1




       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
           Criminal Revision No. 2471/2021
               ( Nilesh Yaduwanshi Vs. State of M.P. )


Jabalpur, Dated :21.10.2021


     Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
     Shri   Aditya       Gupta,        Panel      Lawyer   for   the
respondent/State.

Heard finally.

The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 27.03.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Junnardev, district Chhindwara, whereby his application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

Briefly stated, the facts are that the police of Police Station Junnardev, district Chhindwara registered a case under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)n, 376(2)j, 376(3), 506 of the I.P.C. read with Section 5 and 6 of POCSO Act against four accused persons alleging that they abducted a minor girl and the motor cycle bearing registration No.MP-28-MY-4185 was used in abduction of the proscutrix. During the pendency of the case, an application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant for release of the aforesaid vehicle, which was rejected by the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle, which is kept unattended for a long period at the police station premises. It is contended that if the vehicle is not returned to the applicant, it will turn into junk day by day. It is contended that the vehicle may be handed over to him by taking appropriate bond and guarantee for the return of the said vehicle.

Per contra, Shri Aditya Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the prayer. It is submitted that applicant alongwith other accused persons used the aforesaid vehicle for heinous crime.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat (2002) 10 SCC 283 and the Supreme Court has observed :-

"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 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 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 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."

In the case of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil Vs. State of Mysore (1977) 4 SCC 358 the Supreme Court has observed :-

"4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject- matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. .........."

The ratio of the aforesaid judgments squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The order of the trial Court is, therefore, quashed.

It is directed that the seized vehicle, Motor Cycle bearing registration No. MP-28-MY-4185 shall be handed over to the applicant on Supurdginama subject to producing the original registration certificate and further on satisfying the following conditions :-

(i) That, the applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) for the aforesaid vehicle, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on an undertaking to produce the said vehicle before the trial Court as and when required.

(ii) That, the applicant shall got the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer, who will be deputed by the trial court and to be kept in the file of the case.

(iii) That, the personal bond of the applicant as well as surety shall carry the photographs of both and the bond of surety shall further carry the photograph of person identifying him before the Court which would be with full residential proof of the surety and the person identifying him.

(iv) The applicant shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and not to lease it to any one and not to alienate or create any third party interest and

not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make identifiable.

(v) The applicant will not allow the vehicle to be used for any anti-social activities.

With the aforesaid, this revision under Section 309/401 of the Cr.P.C. stands allowed. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial Court/the authority concerned for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Nandita Dubey) Judge SMT.

gnGEETHA NAIR 2021.10.21 16:36:40 +05'30'