Danish vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2654 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               Criminal Misc. Application No. 928 of 2021


Danish                                                            ...Petitioner

                                     Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another                              ....Respondents


Present:-
Mr. Bilal Ahmad, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, AGA with Ms. Lata Negi, Brief Holder for the State.

                                JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

A vehicle bearing Registration No. UK17 CA 0569 ("the vehicle") was taken into custody by police in Crime No. 547 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, Police Station Manglour, District Haridwar.

2. The petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of the vehicle filed a release application before the court of competent jurisdiction, which was rejected on 08.01.2021. This order is impugned in this petition.

3. In fact, earlier, the petitioner sought quashing of the summoning order dated 08.01.2021, but when realized the mistake, amended petition has been filed and now it is sought that the impugned order dated 08.01.2021 be quashed and the vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in fact, three vehicles were taken into custody by the police at the same time, out of which one vehicle belonging to Sanjid Ahmad has been

released in favour of Sanjid Ahmad by an order dated 18.06.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 287 of 2021. A copy of the order dated 18.06.2021 has been enclosed as Annexure No. 5.

6. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of Sanjid Ahmad. He is the registered owner of the vehicle. Merely because the engine number is not readable, the vehicle has been seized.

7. Learned State Counsel admits that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of Sanjid Ahmad, whose vehicle has already been released by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2021.

8. Having considered the rival submissions, under the facts and circumstances of this Case, this Court is of a view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

9. The petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The vehicle in question be released in favour of the petitioner, who is registered owner of it, subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The release shall be subject to the following conditions:-

I. The petitioner shall not transfer the ownership of the vehicle without prior permission of the court concerned.

II. The petitioner shall not change the form of the vehicle during trial of the case without prior permission of the court concerned.

III. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.07.2021 Avneet/