Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chhotu Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2022

Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                                     1


           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                             Bench Gwalior
                           *****************
            SB:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                              CRR 2619 of 2021

                                  Chhotu Lodhi
                                       Vs.
                              State of MP and Anr.


               ==================================
Shri SN Dubey, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Dheeraj Budholiya, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/ State.
               ==================================
Reserved on                                  16/02/2022
Whether approved for reporting              ........../...........
                ==================================
                                     ORDER

(Passed on 17/02/2022)

Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J:-

Present revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying

that the order dated 16/09/2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore,

District Shivpuri (MP) in Case No.09 of 2021 be set aside, whereby the said

Court refused to release the motorcycle of the applicant bearing registration No.

MP33 MX2996 on Supurdignama by rejecting the application filed u/S. 451/457

of CrPC.

(2) Necessary facts for disposal of present revision in short are that the above-

mentioned said motorcycle was involved in the commission of offence u/S. 394,

34 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act by which, FIR vide Crime No189

of 2021 has been lodged at Police Station Picchore against the applicant along

with co-accused Kalla alias Ajab Singh Lodhi. The matter was investigated and

after completion of investigation and other formalities, police filed charge sheet

before the Court. After filing of charge sheet, applicant filed an application

u/S.451/457 of CrPC to get his vehicle on Supurdignma. The Court below, after

considering the evidence on record, passed the impugned order by rejecting the

application filed by applicant u/S. 451/457 of CrPC. Hence, this revision.

(4) It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the

registered owner of the seized vehicle. Registration certificate and other requisite

insurance papers of said vehicle have been filed in support of his contention. If

the motorcycle keeps in the police station concerned, then the same will get

damaged due to weather condition. The applicant is ready and willing to abide

by any condition which may be imposed by this Court. Relying upon the

judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal

Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, it is contended that

the motorcycle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as

the same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful, therefore, the Court below

be directed to release the motorcycle by imposing some conditions.

(5) Per contra, the State Counsel opposed the prayer of the applicant and

submitted that the motorcycle was used for commission of offence u/S. 394, 34

of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. If the motorcycle is given to the

applicant on Supurdignma, then it will against the mandate of Motor Vehicles

Act and Rules. Since the charge sheet has been filed, therefore, it is the subject-

matter of evidence, which shall be considered by the Court below. Therefore, no

interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the Court below.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of this revision.

(6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents available on

record.

(7) In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported

in (2002) 10 SCC 283, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following

provisions as to how to release vehicle and it is profitable to reproduce relevant

paragraphs 17 and 18 of the said judgment hereunder:-

"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. It is undisputed that the criminal trial is still pending in relation to vehicle in question and the said vehicle is lying idle since long in the custody of police, due to which its condition is deteriorating day -by-day.''

(8) Section 451 of CrPC reads as under:-

451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.

When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an 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. Explanation-

For the purposes of this section, "property" includes-

(a)property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody.

(b)any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

Section 457 of CrPC reads as under:-

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property. (1)Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is

reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.'' (9) On perusal of record, it is apparent that the applicant is the registered

owner of the seized motorcycle. Conclusion of trial will take some time. It is

true that the seized motorcycle is the subject-matter of evidence, but in the light

of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai

Ambalal Desai (supra), the present revision is allowed. The motorcycle in

question be handed over to applicant on Supurdignama by imposing following

conditions:-

(1) If the applicant submits a Bank Guarantee of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) before the concerning Court/Magistrate and furnishes interim custody bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) to the satisfaction of concerning trial Court/ Magistrate, then possession of motorcycle in question be given to the applicant on Supurdignama during pendency of trial. (2) On verification of requisite documents pertaining to registered owner of the motorcycle in question, same shall be handed over to the custody of the applicant;

(3) Applicant shall keep the motorcycle so released intact and shall not change its identification;

(4) Applicant shall produce the vehicle on his own cost as and

when the Court below/Magistrate requires the same for proposed identification and the applicant shall not create any third party right over the said motorcycle;

(5) After release of motorcycle, if same nature of offence or any offence is committed by using this motorcycle, the aforesaid Bank Guarantee shall be forfeited automatically. (6) This order shall remain in force till final disposal of trial pending before the Court below/Magistrate and at the time of final disposal of trial, the Court below/Magistrate will be at liberty to pass an appropriate order with regard to seized motorcycle in question in accordance with law, without getting influenced by this order.