Allowed

Rohit Kumar Ray v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2021Cr.Rev./665/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged an order rejecting the petitioner's prayer for release of a seized commercial vehicle. The High Court held that since no confiscation proceedings were initiated and the IO had no objection, the lower court was negligent in withholding release. The court directed the release of the vehicle upon furnishing an indemnity bond.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 19.06.2020 is set aside. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to release the vehicle upon furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs.5,00,000/- within tw

Rohit Kumar Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 665 of 2020

¶3

Rohit Kumar Rai … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Rai, Adv. For the State : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Adv. ---

¶4

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

¶5

¶6

05/08.07.2021: Heard the parties.

¶7

It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that vehicle bearing Registration No. JH-15S 8472 has been seized by the police on 31.12.2019 on the allegation of carrying illegal govt. controlled rice and accordingly, Deori P.S. Case No.163 of 2019 dated 31.12.2019 has been instituted.

¶8

It appears that the petitioner has moved a petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle in question, which has been rejected by the court below vide order dated 19.06.2020 and as against that order, present criminal revision has been filed.

¶9

It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid commercial vehicle is lying in an open space and got it deteriorated day by day and harming the interest of the petitioner, who claims himself to be the owner of the said vehicle.

¶10

It has been further submitted, by referring to the order, that no confiscation proceeding has been initiated till passing of the order impugned. In spite of the said fact, vehicle has not been released, which is nothing, but non exercising of power vested in the court below and this is not permissible under law.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujrat [(2002) 10 SCC 283].

¶12

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for release of the vehicle and submitted that he should be given an opportunity of one week for getting the instruction in the matter. It has been further submitted that the vehicle in question may be confiscated under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and as such, if the vehicle is released, the future interest of the State should be protected.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for State and perusing the record available, it appears that no confiscation proceeding has been initiated, rather report dated 16.06.2020 has been submitted before the court below by the District Supply Officer, Giridih. Relevant part of the report (Annexure-3) dated 16.06.2020, reads as under:

¶14

Whether the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question?- Yes

¶15

Whether the documents relation to seized vehicle is valid and upto-date?-Yes

¶16

Whether the vehicle is required in investigation or not?-No.

¶17

Whether the confiscation case against the vehicle is started or not?Yes

¶18

Whether the I.O. has got any objection in releasing the vehicle in question?-No

¶19

Annexure-2 dated 29.02.2020 also suggests that the Officer-inCharge of Deori P.S., Giridih has no objection with regard to release of the vehicle. In view of the above reports, there was no occasion for the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, not to release the vehicle in favour of the owner.

¶20

In view of the above discussions and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih is directed to release the vehicle, on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs.5,00,000 /- (Five Lac) within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, with stipulation that the petitioner will produce the vehicle as and when required by the court below.

¶21

Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed and the order dated 19.06.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in connection with Deori P.S. Case No.163 of 2019 is hereby set aside.

¶22

Let a copy of this order be communicated forthwith to the court concerned.

¶23

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶24

Ravi/

Rohit Kumar Ray v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar Ray v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Ravi Mehta Alias Ravi Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Narain Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Ranjit Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukesh Kumar Yadav Alias Sukesh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhay Bharadwaj Alias Abhay Giri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishek Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand