Allowed

Manish Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 May 2018CRR/364/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision filed by vehicle owner to release a car seized under the NDPS Act. The High Court allowed the revision, ordering the release of the vehicle on a supurdnama with a surety and specific conditions to prevent asset depreciation and ensure its availability for trial.

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized Tata Indica car on supurdnama by furnishing a surety of Rs. 5 Lakhs and complying with specified conditions.

Manish Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Arbitration | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Revision No.364 of 2018

¶4

Manish Kumar S/o Late Kamaldev Prasad, aged 45 years, R/o C H C Kohamdor, Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh, U.P.

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

versus State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Sariya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent

¶7

For Applicant : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer

¶8

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶9

Order on Board

¶10

3.5.2018

¶11

1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 25.1.2018 passed by the Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (henceforth 'the Act'), Raigarh in Crime No.168 of 2017 registered under Section 20(b) of the Act. By the impugned order, the Special Judge has rejected the application moved by the present Applicant for release of his vehicle on supurdnama.

¶12

2. The Applicant is the owner of a Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.UP 72 AT 1485 which was seized in Crime No.168 of the 2017 registered at Police Station Sariya, District Raigarh for offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Act. As per the prosecution story, on 27.12.2017, on receiving information, the said car was searched and 25 Kgs. of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the accused who was sitting in the said car. An application for release of the said car on supurdnama was filed by the present Applicant before the Special Judge, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 25.1.2018. Hence, this

¶13

¶14

revision.

¶15

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is the registered owner of the car. He was not involved in the crime in question. He is not the accused in the case. No proceeding relating to confiscation of the car is pending. Chargesheet has been filed. The car is kept idle in an open place of the police station since 27.12.2017. This would lead to depreciation in value of the car. Therefore, the car may be released and handed over to the Applicant on supurdnama.

¶16

4. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Respondent supports the impugned order.

¶17

5. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care.

¶18

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the car is kept idle in an open place of the police station since 27.12.2017, no proceeding relating to confiscation of the car is pending and value of the car may be depreciated on its remaining kept unused for long, I am inclined to allow the present revision and release the car on supurdnama.

¶19

7. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The vehicle Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.UP 72 AT 1485 be released in favour of the Applicant on a supurdnama on furnishing a surety in the sum of Rupees Five Lakhs to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court with the following conditions that during pendency of the trial—

¶20

¶21

(i) no third party transfer of the vehicle shall be done by the Applicant,

¶22

(ii) paint and look/design of the vehicle shall not be changed and

¶23

(iii) whenever order for submission of the vehicle is issued, the same shall be complied with on time.

¶24

Sd/( Arvind Singh Chandel ) Judge

¶25

Gopal

Manish Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rustam Bhardwaj Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Mangal Das Chaturvedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Puniram Vs State of M.P.