Satish Kumar vs State Of Haryana
2024 Latest Caselaw 7525 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Satish Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 9 April, 2024

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049114



 CRR-2770-2022            #1#                       2024:PHHC:049114

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH.


                                                                CRR-2770-2022

                                                 Date of Decision:-09.04.2024

Satish Kumar.

                                                                  ......Petitioner.
                                       Vs.

State of Haryana.

                                                                ......Respondent.


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI


Present:-   Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate for
            Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate for the Petitioner.

            Mr. Rajiv Goel, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

                                ***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

The present revision petition has been filed against the order

dated 03.11.2022 whereby the application of the petitioner for releasing the

vehicle bearing registration no.HR-19K-0176 make Bolero Camper on

superdari has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Pramesh Kumar got

registered FIR No.62 dated 07.03.2022 under Sections 201, 202, 302, 341,

34 IPC registered at Police Station Kosli, District Rewari, Haryana with the

allegations that Satyawan had committed the murder of his son. A copy of

the FIR is attached as Annexure P-1.

During the course of the investigation 04 persons including

Satyawan were arrested and on conclusion of the investigation, the report

under Section 173(2) Cr.PC was presented against them. After framing of

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049114

CRR-2770-2022 #2# 2024:PHHC:049114

the charges the case is now posted for examination of prosecution witnesses.

3. The petitioner who is the registered owner of the Bolero

Camper bearing registration no.HR-19K-0176 moved an application for the

release of the vehicle on superdari which came to be dismissed by the court

of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide impugned order dated

03.11.2022.

It is the aforesaid order which is under challenge in the present

petition.

4. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is

nowhere concerned with the commission of the alleged offence as described

in the FIR. However, during the course of the investigation it transpired that

the vehicle in question had been used for committing the offence.

Admittedly, the petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle and,

therefore, even though the vehicle in question might have been used for the

commission of crime, the same ought to have been released to him by way

of interim custody since neither the State nor the owner of the vehicle was to

be benefited in any manner, if the vehicle was retained in the premises of the

police station. On the other hand it was likely to diminish in value and the

parts of the vehicle were also likely to be stolen. He thus contends that the

impugned order be quashed and the vehicle be handed over/released to him

on imposition of appropriate conditions. Reliance is placed on the

judgments in Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of Gujarat 2003(1)

RCR (Criminal) 380 and Gurbinder Singh @ Shinder Vs. State of Punjab

2016(4) RCR (Criminal) 492.

4. The Counsel for the State on the other hand while referring to

the reply dated 08.01.2024 contends that the vehicle in question had been

used to commit the heinous offence. There was an apprehension that if the

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049114

CRR-2770-2022 #3# 2024:PHHC:049114

vehicle was released on superdari, the same could be tampered with or used

to commit another offence. He submits that the impugned order had rightly

been passed and the vehicle ought not be released to the petitioner even

though he was the registered owner.

5. I have learned Counsel for the parties at length.

6. In Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai's case (supra) the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:-

" 15.Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.

16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.

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.

19. For articles such as seized liquor also, prompt action should be

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049114

CRR-2770-2022 #4# 2024:PHHC:049114

taken in disposing it of after preparing necessary panchnama. If sample is required to be taken, sample may kept properly after sending it to the chemical analyser, if required. But in no case, large quantity of liquor should be stored at the police station. No purpose is served by such storing.

20. Similarly for the Narcotic drugs also, for its identification, procedure under Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 should be followed of recording evidence and disposal. Its identity could be on the basis of evidence recorded by the Magistrate. Samples also should be sent immediately to the Chemical Analyser so that subsequently, a contention may not be raised that the article which was seized was not the same.

21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court regard to such articles are implemented properly.

Adjourned for three weeks.

Order accordingly."

The aforesaid judgment has been followed by this Court in

Gurbinder Singh @ Shinder Vs. State of Punjab 2016(4) RCR (Criminal)

492 .

7. In view of the aforementioned judgments it is apparent that if

the vehicle remains parked in the police station for a considerable period of

time, it would become unfit for being plying on the road as keeping it parked

in the sun and rain could damage its tyres, colour, machinery, battery as also

interiors of the vehicle. The value of the vehicle would also diminish in

such a situation.

8. Thus the present petition is allowed. The vehicle bearing

registration No. HR-19K-0176 make Bolero Camper is ordered to be

released to the petitioner/registered owner on superdari on general terms and

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049114

CRR-2770-2022 #5# 2024:PHHC:049114

conditions subject to the petitioner/registered owner executing personal

bonds in the sum of Rs.1 lakh with one surety of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate with an undertaking that as and

when the Trial Court would require the said vehicle, he would produce the

same before it at his own cost. He shall also not sell, transfer or alter the

physical condition of the vehicle in any manner. Though he is not an

accused in the instant FIR, nevertheless he shall also furnish an undertaking

that he will not use or permit its use for commission of any offence and in

case of involvement of the petitioner or the aforementioned vehicle in any

case it would be open to the prosecution to move an application for

cancellation of the order releasing the vehicle on superdari.

9. Disposed of in the above terms.

                                               ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
                                                    JUDGE
April 09, 2024
Vinay
        Whether speaking/reasoned                    Yes/No
        Whether reportable                           Yes/No




                                      5 of 5