Allowed

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2022A227/876/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a truck owner filed regarding the rejection of his application to release a seized vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The Court set aside the lower court order and directed the release of the truck upon furnishing a personal bond and ensuring sureties.

What did the court decide?

The vehicle to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15 lac and two sureties in the like amount.

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 876 of 2022 Petitioner :- Neeraj Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

By way of this writ petition the petitioner has sought to set aside the order dated 20.1.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai in complaint case no. 3856 of 2018, State of U.P. Vs. Alok Kumar, under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals ( Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, police station Konch District Jalaun.

¶5

By the impugned order, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai rejected the application filed by the petitioner to release the truck no. U.P. 93-BT 0043, under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

¶6

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is the real owner and having all documents of the truck. The offence is said to have committed by a person and not by the truck itself and it is not possible for him to produce the driver before the court, as the driver was a private person who is absconding after committing this incident. His truck is lodged in the police station concerned. The condition of the truck is being deteriorated day by day.

¶7

The learned A.G.A argued that the truck is the case property. Morang was being transported by the said truck without any legal document, hence, it is not possible to release the said vehicle pendentelite, being the case property.

¶8

Going through the complaint filed under 4/21 of Mines and Minerals ( Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 by Rajesh Kumar Singh Mines Officer, Jalaun at Orai appended at page '26' of the paper book, I find that the truck of the petitioner was found transporting morang without legal documents. The truck is said to have lodged at police station concerned from 17.8.2018. On the release application, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned has passed three line order that the owner of the vehicle has not produced the accused (driver) so the ground is insufficient and the application is rejected.

¶9

It is apposite to mention provisions regarding release of the vehicle which are from Section 451 to 457 Cr.P.C. Section 451 Cr.P.C. runs as

¶10

under;

¶11

"451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

¶12

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," property" includes-

¶13

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody,

¶14

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence."

¶15

Reliance has been placed on the judgment Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat, 2003(1) RCR ( Criminal) 380 , wherein the Apex Court has laid down guidelines dealing with the release of seized vehicle and in paragraph no. 17 and 21 held as under;

¶16

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

¶17

21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This Object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly."

¶18

In the case in hand, the truck is said to be lodged at police station concerned since 17.8.2018. With the passage of time ultimately it will become junk and after sometime it will be not useful for any purpose.

¶19

No doubt the impugned order is cryptic and non speaking order rejecting the release application of the petitioner on the ground of non production of driver in the court.

¶20

Keeping the vehicle lodged in police station would not serve the purpose.

¶21

Let the aforesaid vehicle be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15 lac and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶22

The petitioner shall not dispose of the vehicle during pendency of the case.

¶23

The petitioner shall not change the nature of the vehicle during pendency of the case.

¶24

The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the court concerned as and when directed by the court.

¶25

The impugned order mentioned above is hereby set aside.

¶26

The writ petition is allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 4.3.2022/Gss

¶28

Digitally signed by GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA Date: 2022.03.07 17:47:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P.

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

Ajay @ Vijay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neetu Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Durgvijay @ Durgesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jitendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surendra Pal Vs Shyam Singh

Arjun and 12 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others