Disposed

Mohammad Shanu v. State of Up

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2019A482/8406/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking release of a seized motorcycle held as case property. Directions were issued for furnishing security and compliance with trial court orders upon providing guarantee.

What did the court decide?

Direction to furnish Rs.50,000 security (non-cash); release of motorcycle after photographs and taking undertakings regarding the vehicle.

Mohammad Shanu Vs State of Up — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8406 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Shanu Opposite Party :- State Of Up Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (U.P. Dacoity Affected Area), Lalitpur, whereby application dated 01.08.2018 of the applicant for release of his Motorcycle Hero Passion PROS No.U.P.94 S-9022 has been rejected by the trial court.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the owner of the Hero Passion PROS No.U.P.94 S- 9022, which is the case property of S.T.No.07 of 2018 (State vs. Anoop Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No.258 of 2018, under sections 395, 397, 412 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur, pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge (U.P. Dacoity Affected Area, Lalitpur).

¶8

It is submitted that on 01.08.2018, the applicant moved an application for release of his aforesaid motorcycle, which has been wrongly and illegally rejected by the trial court by the impugned order dated 18.12.2018 without considering the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Suderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 Suppl (3) SCR 39 , wherein the Apex Court has held that no useful purpose would be served in keeping and retaining the vehicle in the police station for more than fifteen days, as it will be destroyed and will not be of any use.

¶9

It is further submitted that there is no dispute about the ownership of the motorcycle in question. The trial court has rejected the said application of the applicant on the ground that there is possibility of changing the colour and nature of the motorcycle, which is an important evidence being case property of the case.

¶10

Lastly, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant undertakes before this Court that he will neither change the colour and nature of the motorcycle in question nor will sale/dispose of the said motorcycle during pendency of the trial and shall produce the same, whenever it is required by the trial court.

¶11

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that since the motorcycle in question is a case property and therefore, there is every possibility of changing the colour and nature of the motorcycle, which might effect the prosecution case.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material evidence as well as facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of well settled law laid down in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal (supra), the present application is being disposed of with the following directions:-

¶13

(1) That the applicant shall furnish a security equal to amount of Rs.50,000/- other than cash and bank guarantee before the trial court within 30 days.

¶14

(2) On furnishing the aforesaid security, the trial court shall direct the Officer Incharge of Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur to release the aforesaid motorcycle No.U.P.94S/9022 in favour of the applicant within ten days after taking the photographs of the same, which shall be kept in the concerned record of the case.

¶15

(3) The applicant shall not sale/dispose of the aforesaid motorcycle during pendency of the trial and shall produce the same whenever the same will be required before the trial court.

¶16

(4) The applicant shall also not change the colour and nature of the aforesaid motorcycle in any manner.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.3.2019 SKD

Mohammad Shanu v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Shanu v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rizwan Ullah I and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Niyajuddeen Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Bhagelu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shariq Ali Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ratiram and 02 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ravi and Another Vs State of Up and Another