Uttarakhand High Court
Sanjid Ahmad vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 287 of 2021
Sanjid Ahmad ....... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others .......Respondents
Present:- Mr. Bilal Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. assisted by Ms. Lata Negi, Brief Holder for the
State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") has been preferred against order
dated 19.01.2021, passed in Case No. 783 of 2020, (which is based on
Case Crime No. 547 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC,
Police Station Mangalore, District Haridwar) by the Judicial Magistrate-
1st Roorkee, District Haridwar. By the impugned order, an application for
release of a truck bearing Registration No. HR-58-3783 (for short, "the
vehicle") has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video
conferencing and perused the records.
4. Briefly stated, according to the case, on 26.08.2020, police
intercepted few trucks including the vehicle. The vehicle had chassis
number on it, but there was no engine number. It was told that parts of
the stolen vehicles are assembled with the chassis number and they are
registered based on the documents of the condemned vehicle. On this
basis, FIR was lodged and the vehicle was taken into custody.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle. He is ready to produce
the vehicle as and when required by the Court. He will not change its
form without the prior permission of the Court, therefore, the vehicle
may be released in his favour.
6. Learned State counsel would submit that the vehicle was
made from the parts of the stolen vehicles by renewing the documents of
the condemned vehicle and it is an offence and the vehicle is the case
property.
7. Admittedly, the vehicle is registered in the name of the
petitioner. The impugned order records that the chassis number, which
was found on the vehicle, is the chassis number as recorded in the
registration certificate, of the vehicle. Now, if there is no engine number,
what are its reasons? Is it really stolen? In fact, these issues would be
decided during trial. But, keeping the vehicle in the police custody would
definitely diminish its value and may make it useless in due course of
time. Therefore, definitely, with certain conditions if the vehicle is
released in favour of the petitioner, who is its registered owner, it would
better serve the interest of justice. Accordingly, this Court is of the view
that the petition deserves to be allowed.
8. 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:-
1. The petitioner shall not transfer the ownership of the vehicle
without prior permission of the court concerned.
2. The petitioner shall not change the form of the vehicle
during trial of the case without prior permission of the court
concerned.
3. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when
required by the court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
18.06.2021
Sanjay
