Allowed

Suresh Kora v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2021A482/16176/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application to quash an order declining the release of a seized vehicle. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that seized vehicles should not remain in police custody indefinitely and may be released to the registered owner upon security.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.03.2020 quashed; vehicle No.OD-10J 3331 released upon furnishing bond with two solvent sureties and on adequate conditions.

Suresh Kora Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16176 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Suresh Kora Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Nand Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 08.03.2020 passed by Special Judge NDPS Act, Sonebadra in Misc. Case No.63 of 2020 (State Vs. Vivek Kumar Singh and others), whereby the the court below has declined to release the vehicle of the applicant. .

¶7

On 30.08.2019 FIR has been lodged against five accused persons under Section 8/20 NDPS Act and 2 vehicles No.OD10 J 3331 Mahendra Bolero and Vehicle No.UP 64 AE 7171 Brezza Car were seized by the police. 58 Kg illegal ganja was recovered from the seized vehicle bolero registration No.OD-10 J 3331.The applicant being registered owner of the seized vehicle No. OD-10J 3331 moved application for release of the vehicle which was rejected by impugned order dated 08.03.2020.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is not accused of the case. He is registered owner of the seized vehicle. The Vehicle is parked at police station for a long time and it is unsafe and its condition is deteriorating due to disuse. He is ready to furnish bond with sureties. The reason mentioned in the impugned order for refusing the release of the vehicle is against law. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on view taken by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat 2002 (10)SCC 283, Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another (2001) 10 SCC 88 and Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others (2001) 9 SCC 718 .

¶9

Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer and contended that seized vehicle is case property and there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶10

The general law relating to release of valuable articles, currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and narcotic drugs seized in connection with a crime pending investigation or trial by the

¶11

Magistrate has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (supra). In said decision of their Lordships the issue of vehicles seized in connection with crime and parked at police stations has been dealt with and answered thus.

¶12

" 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 bonds and guarantee as well as surety for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of the application for return of such vehicles.

¶13

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 the 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 the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicle may be sold as per 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 vehicles should be taken and detailed Panchnama should be prepared. "

¶14

In Rajendera Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another (supra), it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court "We are not deciding the question as to the title of the vehicle in dispute nor the correctness of the rival versions regarding the transactions relating to the vehicle. We do not want the vehicle to remain in compound of the police station exposed to heat and cold because automobile is likely to be lost to all in such situation. To avert this situation, we are inclined to entrust it temporarily to the applicant who is ostensible name holder in the registration certificate. The custody of the vehicle with the applicant will be on behalf of the court and this arrangement is only till the stage when the court passes the order regarding the disposal of the property on conclusion of the trial."

¶15

In Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others (supra) while Apex Court has observed that "we do not think it necessary to keep the vehicle in compound of the court indefinitely for a very long till the final disposal of the case. It is more advisable to entrust it to the registered owner on behalf of the Court under certain conditions."

¶16

The purport of the case law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously. The reason being that owner of the articles should not suffer because of it remaining unused and the police should not be required to keep the article in safe custody. It has further been laid down in the four cited case law that while giving custody of the article, the article should be released on proper security.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the material on record of the case and precedent law cited at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that as per the legislative intent of Section 451 Cr.P.C., the property means any property regarding which, an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for commission of any offence, and therefore, the release of the vehicle/article/currency notes under Section 451 Cr.P.C. cannot be restricted merely on account of fact that they were used for commission of the any offence and are case property.

¶18

In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the aforecited precedent law, the present application is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.03.2020 passed by Special Judge, NDPS is quashed and set aside and the learned court concerned is directed to release the vehicle bearing No.OD-10J 3331 Bolero in supardigi of the applicant upon his furnishing a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned and on adequate conditions.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.1.2021 Ashutosh Pandey

Suresh Kora v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kora v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Smt Rukmani and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pooran Lal and 13 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another