Sahdev Meher v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 213 of 2019 Sahdev Meher, aged about 49 years S/o Purnanand Meher, Caste Bhuliya R/o Village Jamla, Police Station Padampur, District Bargarh (Odisha) ----Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.).

---- Respondent For Applicant :

Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. K.K. Dewangan, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board 26/03/2019 1.

By way of present Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., the Applicant has challenged order dated 24/01/2019 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 12/2017 by the Special Judge (NDPS), Saraipali, District Mahasamund, whereby the application of the Applicant for releasing vehicle on interim custody was rejected. 2.

The Applicant is registered owner of Dezire Car vehicle bearing registration No. CG07-T-2512, Engine No. ND1667384, Chassis No. MA3FSEB1S00392158. As per prosecution story, on 16/07/2017 at the time of vehicle checking, the said vehicle was stopped by the police official, wherein son of the Applicant namely Rajkumar Maher and coaccused Narendra was sitting. On search total 120 kg cannabis (Ganja) was seized from the accused persons. It was found that the vehicle was carrying forged number plate as CG04 HA 1404. The vehicle was also seized. The Applicant, being owner of vehicle, made an application for

releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama which was rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that the vehicle has been seized on suspicious condition. Thus, this revision.

3.

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is registered owner of the vehicle and in registration certificate of the said vehicle, chassis number and engine number matches with the seized vehicle, therefore, it is clear that the seized vehicle belongs to the Applicant. He further submits that there is no involvement of the Applicant in crime in question. The seized vehicle of which the Applicant is registered owner is lying idle in the police station since 16/07/2017 and no fruitful purpose would be served if the vehicle remains idle in the custody of the police personnels exposed to the extreme weather conditions. The vehicle would get decayed day by day and would further deteriorate by passage of time to the extent that it would become unusable after some time and therefore in the interest of justice the vehicle may be released. 4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the claim of the Applicant.

5.

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

6.

Considering the fact that the Applicant is the registered owner of the seized vehicle and also taking note of the fact that no useful purpose would be served if the seized vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions at the police station. On the contrary, if the vehicle can be released to the Applicant subject to certain conditions he can use it so that the vehicle does not become junk after some time.

7.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order rejecting the application for releasing of the seized vehicle on Supurdnama is not proper and the same is set-aside.

8.

It is directed that the seized vehicle belonging to the Applicant i.e. Dzire Car bearing registration No. CG07-T-2512, Engine No. ND1667384, Chassis No. MA3FSEB1S00392158 be released to the Applicant upon his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. In the bond he shall give an undertaking that he shall not change the ownership of the vehicle nor shall he change colour of the vehicle neither shall he create a third party right or interest over the said vehicle. He shall also undertake that he shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the prosecution during course of investigation, trial and even at the appellate state. He shall further undertake to produce the vehicle to any competent authority under different statutes as and when required. So far as surety is concerned, it shall be equal to the present day value of the vehicle seized or to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. 9.

With the aforesaid observations, the Criminal Revision is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Rahul