Mikeswar Digal vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 13744 Ori

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   CRLREV No.365 of 2023
        Mikeswar Digal                        ....        Petitioner
                                                   Mr. M. Das, Adv.
                                 -versus-
        State of Odisha                     ....       Opposite Party
                                            Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, ASC



                 CORAM:
                 DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order                            ORDER
No.                             06.11.2023

03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In this CRLREV, the Petitioner has assailed legality of

the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the learned

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Balliguda in Crl.

Misc. Case No.09 of 2023 rejecting his application under

Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for interim release of the seized

Hero HF Deluxe Motorcycle bearing Registration No.OD-

12-D-6676.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the

learned counsel for the State.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner

that the Petitioner is the registered owner of a Hero HF

Deluxe Motorcycle bearing Registration No.OD-12-D-

6676. On 18.07.2022, the said vehicle was seized by the

// 2 //

S.I. of Raikia P.S. in connection with Raikia P.S. Case

No.73 of 2022. He further submits that the Petitioner's

elder brother is the sole accused of the said case who

alleged to have used the said vehicle committing offence

under Sections 302/376(1) of I.P.C.

5. He further submits that the Petitioner is the owner

of the vehicle and he solely depends upon the said

vehicle to maintain his livelihood. He further contends

that the vehicle of the Petitioner has been kept in Raikia

P.S. for more than one year. It is contended that simply

because the Petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle,

the application for interim release of the vehicle has been

rejected by the court below.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the since the

vehicle of the Petitioner has been used for eloping with

the victim to different places, the court below has rightly

rejected the Petitioner's application under Section 457 of

the Cr.P.C.

7. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal

of materials on record, it is found that admittedly the

Petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle.

The said vehicle has been kept in the Raikia PS for more

than one year and exposed to sun and rain and may face

unnecessary wear and tear. In case the seized vehicle is

// 3 //

left unattended in the premises of the police station for an

indefinite period, the vehicle is likely to be damaged and

deteriorated beyond repair. In such circumstances, there

appears no hindrance in releasing the seized vehicle in

the zima of the Petitioner on furnishing security and

appropriate undertaking.

8. In view of the judgment passed in Sunderbhai

Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujurat by the Apex Court in

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2745 of 2002 where it has

been observed as follows:

"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."

9. Accordingly, the CRLREV is disposed of directing the

court in seisin over the matter to release the above seized

vehicle in the zima of the Petitioner subject to the

conditions that the Petitioner:

(i) shall furnish security bond of Rs.35,000/-

(rupees thirty five thousand);

// 4 //

(ii) shall file an undertaking that he will not change

the appearance and colour of the seized

vehicle;

(iii) shall not allow the vehicle to be used for any

illegal purpose; and

(iv) shall produce the seized vehicle in the court as

and when required.

10. In case of violation of any of the conditions by the

Petitioner, this order shall not be applicable.

11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

application.

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

Murmu

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 08-Nov-2023 20:45:21