Rajendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4596 MP

                                -1-


The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench At Indore

 BEFORE SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14849 of 2022

          Between:-
          RAJENDRA SINGH S/O BAHADUR SINGH
          RAJPUT , AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
          AGRICULTURE WARD NO. 13 AYODHYA BASTI
          (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                           .....PETITIONER


          AND

          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
          HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
          SARANGPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                        .....RESPONDENTS
Indore, dated 31.03.2022
        Shri Shubham Arya, learned counsel for the applicant.
        Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari, learned Government Advocate
for the respondent / State.
        Heard.
                              ORDER

The applicant has filed present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28.12.2021 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Rajgarh, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

The police registered a case against Rajendra (driver) as 12

kg of poppy straw was recovered from a vehicle bearing registration No.MP 09 FR 3361. This applicant being owner / accused has filed an application seeking release of vehicle on Supurdginama which has been rejected on the ground that there is no reason to believe that after releasing the vehicle, the applicant will not use the same for committing the offence. Hence, the present application is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the vehicle which is laying in the police station is deteriorating. The case is still pending against the applicant and no confiscation proceeding of the aforesaid vehicle has been initiated and if the vehicle will not give to the applicant on Supurdginama, then it is possible to destroy the vehicle. He further submits that learned Special Judge has committed error in rejecting the prayer of the applicant for grant of interim custody of the vehicle in this regard counsel has relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Sunderbai Ambalal Desai v/s State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 290 whereby the Apex Court held that 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, hence, counsel for the applicant prayed for the release the aforesaid vehicle in interim custody.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State

opposes the application on prays for its rejection.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not in disputed that applicant is the owner of the aforesaid truck. The trial Court has dismissed the application considering the fact that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated however, there is nothing on record to show that any proceedings for confiscation has been initiated. Thus, the aforesaid vehicle is not required during the pendency of the trial and there is no provision in the NDPS Act to restrict the power of the trial Court to release the vehicle in interim custody. It has been held by this Court in the case of Pandurang Kadam v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2005 (2) ANJ MP 351 that notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it may be released in interim custody in appropriate cases. Thus, interim custody should not be declined to the owner of the vehicle, simply because it is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act.

Undisputedly, the condition of the vehicle is deteriorating day by day as the same is lying open to sky and under the heat of sun and rains. The vehicle is loosing its value day by day due to lack of maintenance, natural wear and tear and passing of time. Considering the fact that the ownership of the applicant on the said vehicle is not contested by the respondent and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial, it would be fit to release

the vehicle bearing registration No. MP 09 FR 3361 seized in an offence under NDPS Act registered at Crime No.427/2021 by Police Station - Sarangpur, District - Rajgarh on the following terms and conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall furnish Supurdginama in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and the surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for releasing the vehicle in question;

(ii) The applicant shall not change the original nature/colour of the vehicle;

(iii) The applicant will not alienate or transfer the said vehicle to any third party or shall not create any interest of third party;

(iv) In case, in the opinion of the Court, the applicant does not produce the vehicle in the condition in which it was given to his possession, the applicant shall pay the amount which would be determined by the Court and

(v) In case of confiscation of the vehicle by the competent authority the applicant shall produce the vehicle or the cost in lieu thereof as determined by the competent authority at his own risk and cost as and when directed by the competent authority. It is further directed that before releasing the vehicle in interim custody of the applicant, the S.H.O. of concerning police station shall cause to be taken 18x12 inches photographs of the concerned vehicle from all sides and also the photographs showing engine number and chasis number. Such photographs shall be filed in the trial Court to be kept along with the record.

With the aforesaid directions, this revision stands disposed of.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Ravi Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH Date: 2022.04.02 13:00:51 +05'30'