Allowed¶16

Mohammad Azam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2025CRLA/1770/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle release; seized vehicle detained in police station; registered owner not an accused; criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act; case crime no. 228 of 2023; Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC; Sections 3(2)(V), 3(1)Dha SC/ST Act; Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Kaushambi order dated 17.12.2024 set at naught; release on personal bond; Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat (2002) 10 SCC 283; TATA SAFARI UP73K-0786; Mohammad Azam v. State of U.P.; Criminal Appeal No. 1770 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.; decision date 3.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

Release of the vehicle (TATA SAFARI, Regn. No. UP73K-0786) to the appellant/registered owner on his personal bond, subject to compliance with other conditions, if any, imposed by the trial Court, if not required in any other case. ¶16

Mohammad Azam vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the vehicle TATA SAFARI bearing registration no. UP73K-0786, intercepted/seized in case crime no. 228 of 2023, ought to be released to the appellant, its registered owner, who is not an accused in the case, notwithstanding the rejection of his release application by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kaushambi.

¶7

Court's answer

On perusal of the registration certificate, the appellant appears to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question; he has not been arrayed as an accused in the said case; and there is no justification to keep the vehicle unnecessarily lying in the police station, there being a strong likelihood of its being damaged.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Keeping in view the rush of vehicles kept in police stations in criminal matters, this Court adopted the principle emphasised by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat (2002) 10 SCC 283 that seized vehicles are not to be detained unnecessarily in the police station.

¶11

Key takeaways

The Court concerned is directed to release the vehicle in question, if not required in any other case, in favour of the appellant/registered owner, who after appearing before the said Court shall submit his personal bond and comply with the other conditions, if any, imposed by the trial Court.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.) allowed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act against rejection of a vehicle release application. The TATA SAFARI (Regn. No. UP73K-0786), intercepted in case crime no. 228 of 2023 under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(V), 3(1)Dha of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Kadadham, District Kaushambi, was directed to be released to the appellant, its registered owner, who is not an accused in the case, on his personal bond and subject to conditions, if any, imposed by the trial Court, if not required in any other case — relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, on the principle that seized vehicles are not to be detained unnecessarily at police stations.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46746

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1770 of 2025 Appellant :- Mohammad Azam Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mayank Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Mohammad Azam feeling aggrieved with the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kaushambi in case crime no. 228 of 2023 under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(V), 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kadadham, District- Kaushambi, whereby the vehicle release application moved by the appellant was rejected.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the aforesaid vehicle TATA SAFARI having registration number UP73K-0786 was intercepted by the police in the aforesaid case crime number and it was alleged that into the said vehicle gang rape was committed with the victim of the said case. It is further submitted that the present appellant is not the accused in the aforesaid case. He is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and all the original papers relating to the said vehicle were already kept in the vehicle itself. His vehicle is detained in police station without any reason and it is being damaged. It is further submitted that learned Sessions Court by passing an illegal order without following the dictum of law determined by the Hon'ble Apex Court pertaining to the matters involving issues regarding release of a vehicle has totally ignored and discarded the legal norms applicable to the case in hand.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for the release of the vehicle.

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.

¶10

A perusal of the record reveals that in the Sessions trial arising out of case crime no. 228 of 2023 the accused Sher Mohammad @ Sheru and Zubair have been released on bail by this Court and thereafter an application for release of the said vehicle was moved before the Sessions Court at Kaushambi and by impugned order dated 17.12.2024 the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) rejected the application for release of the said vehicle. The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (1) of the SC/ST Act. The registration certificate relating to the vehicle in question has been submitted by the appellant, which is on record. The present appellant on perusal of the registration certificate appears to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question. There is no justification to keep the vehicle unnecessarily lying in the police station and there is a strong likelihood for its being damaged. Moreover, the present appellant has not been arrayed as accused in the said case.

¶11

Further, keeping in view the huge rush of the vehicles kept in the police stations involving into several criminal matters and also emphasizing the principle not to detain the seized vehicles unnecessarily in the police station, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat (2002) 10 SCC 283 held that :

¶12

"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 applications for return of such vehicles.

¶13

In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a 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 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 possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."

¶14

In view of the above discussions, the Court concerned is

¶15

directed to release the vehicle in question, if not required in any other case, in favour of the appellant / registered owner, who after appearing before the said Court shall submit his personal bond and comply with the other conditions, if any, imposed by the trial Court.

¶16

With the above observations, the criminal appeal is allowed .

¶17

Order Date :- 3.4.2025 safi

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Azam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Azam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Misbahul Hasan vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ravindra Kumar Alias Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Aniket vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Singh vs State of U.P.

Shyamu Prasad vs State of U.P. and Another