Disposed

Lovekush Bind @ Lavekush Kumar Bind v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2022A482/2167/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order regarding a seized vehicle. The court directed the Magistrate to release the vehicle based on Section 457 Cr.P.C. and the principle that seized vehicles should not remain at police stations indefinitely if not needed for evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Magistrate is directed to release the seized vehicle, keeping in view the law laid down in cited precedents, while ensuring photographs and detail are recorded.

Lovekush Bind @ Lavekush Kumar Bind Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2167 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Lovekush Bind @ Lavekush Kumar Bind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant for quashing the order dated 07.10.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.346 of 2021, Lovekush Bind versus State of U.P., (case crime no.492 of 2020), under Sections 379, 411 IPC & 3/57/70 of the U.P. Sub Mineral (Concession) Manual, 1963 & 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 & 3/5 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj.

¶7

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant's vehicle i.e. TATA ACE MEGA bearing Registration No.UP70 GT 8564 has been falsely seized in the present case. The loading capacity of the said vehicle is 2100 Kg only. Before seizing the vehicle in question, the police has not given the quantity of sand because it was in low quantity. No case is made out in the aforesaid sections. No confiscated proceedings is going on. While passing the impugned order, the court below has not properly appreciated the material on record. It is further submitted that unless the seized vehicle is released in favour of the applicant, he will be seriously prejudiced and there is no useful purpose to keep the vehicle during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the application and admitted that applicant is owner of the said vehicle and there is no confiscated proceeding is going on.

¶9

Perusal of the impugned order discloses that it is not in consonance with the requirement of Section 457 Cr.P.C. which entails that the Court shall determine the question of entitlement of possession under that section. In this case it is not in dispute that the applicant was entitled to possession of the aforesaid vehicle. The ownership of the said vehicle was not in dispute at all. The learned Counsel for the applicant has

¶10

relied upon the judgement of Apex Court reported in 2003 (46) ACC 223, Sunder Bhai Amba Lal Desai v. State of Gujrat . He relied upon para 14 and 15 of the aforesaid judegment, which is reproduced below:

¶11

"14. In our view, whatever be the situation. It is of no use to keep 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 returns of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

¶12

15. 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 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 insurance company fails to take possession the vehicles may be sold as per the 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 possessions of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."

¶13

Upon overall consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the Magistrate concerned shall release the vehicle, keeping in view the law laid down in Sunder Bhai Amba Lal Desai v. State of Gujrat (supra).

¶14

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, disposed of in terms of the above.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.3.2022 I.A.Siddiqui

¶16

Digitally signed by IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.03.16 11:11:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lovekush Bind @ Lavekush Kumar Bind v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lovekush Bind @ Lavekush Kumar Bind 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

Usman Vs State of U.P.

Adil Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Pinki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Sewak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarwan Vs State of U.P and Another

Kareem Vs State of Up Thrugh Its Secratary Home and Another