Dismissed¶¶19

Mohsin Khan Haroon Khan Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Aug 2024WP/146/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim release/custody of vehicle seized in crime; Section 451 Cr.P.C.; Suprutnama; registered owner versus purchaser under agreement of sale; transfer of motor vehicle under Motor Vehicles Act prerequisite to validity; Exh.26 Additional Sessions Judge Hingoli; Criminal Writ Petition 146/2024 Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; S.G. Mehare J.; Mohsin Khan Haroon Khan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since the applicant is not the registered owner of the vehicle, he is not entitled to custody of the vehicle until the trial is concluded; his application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is not tenable. ¶¶18

Mohsin Khan Haroon Khan Pathan Vs the State of… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

64-Cri.WP.146-24.odt

¶2

¶3

2024:BHC-AUG:17819

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

64 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 146 OF 2024

¶6

MOHSIN KHAN HAROON KHAN PATHAN VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Prabhakar Giri. APP for Respondent/-State : Ms. P. V. Diggikar. Advocate for Respondents No.2 : Mr. Vinod Jadhav.

¶9

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J. DATE : 12.08.2024

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Heard the respective learned counsels.

¶12

The applicant has impugned the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli passed below Exh.26 rejecting the application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C.

¶13

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicle seized in the crime was not the weapon. The applicant had produced certain documents.

¶14

The learned counsel for the applicant fairly conceded that the applicant was not the registered owner of the vehicle. The registered owner of the vehicle had executed an agreement of sale. Therefore, vehicle may be released on Suprutnama to him till disposal of the trial.

¶15

64-Cri.WP.146-24.odt

¶16

¶17

The registered owner also joined as a party. He also concedes that he sold the vehicle to the applicant. However, the facts reveal that the vehicle has not been transferred in the name of the applicant. The law is well settled that unless the motor vehicle is transferred by following the Motor Vehicles Act, the other transport are not legal and valid. This was the solitary ground to refuse the application. However, the learned Trial Court declined the application for releasing the vehicle to the applicant on other ground.

¶18

The Court is of the view that since the applicant is not the registered owner of the vehicle, he is not entitled to the custody of the vehicle till the trial is concluded. His application is not tenable.

¶19

Hence, writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is clarified that the registered owner may request by an application to the concerned Court for releasing the offending vehicle under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C.

¶20

vmk/-

Mohsin Khan Haroon Khan Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohsin Khan Haroon Khan Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saida Kausar Sultana MD Kamruddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shital Jitendra Sonawane and Anr. Vs Jitendra S/O. Gulabrao Sonawane

Gopal Govind Lakade Vs the Divisional Commissioner and Others

Shah Javed Wahed Vs Vimal Ashok Mundhe and Another

Rajendra Kashinath Deore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amol Madan Sadafule Vs the State of Maharashtra