Allowed

Hans Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Jul 2021Cr.Rev./672/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench set aside an order refusing release of a seized motorcycle to the petitioner, directing the lower court to release it within two weeks after recording evidence, bonds, and taking security, while protecting evidentiary value for trial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejected petitioner's prayer for release set aside; directed lower court to pass appropriate order within two weeks.

Hans Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Revision No.672 of 2019

¶3

---

¶4

Hans Kumar Singh … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶6

--- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Mahua Palit, A.P.P.

¶7

---

¶8

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.

¶9

---

¶10

03/13.07.2021: The present revision application has been filed against the impugned order dated 04.05.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.21 of 2019, arising out of S.T. Case No.30 of 2019 (G.R. Case No.56 of 2019), in connection with Ghaghra P.S. Case No.126 of 2018, registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Now, the case is pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla.

¶11

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer for release of the alleged Pulsar Motorcycle bearing registration No.JH 07H/1897 was rejected on the ground that it is an important material exhibited and it is an important tool which was used in the commission of serious and heinous crime.

¶12

The issues has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283 in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, with certain directions. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-

¶13

" 5. Section 451 clearly empowers the court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as:

¶14

( 1 ) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial;

¶15

( 2 ) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary;

¶16

( 3 ) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same.

¶17

7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:

¶18

1 . owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

¶19

¶20

2 . court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

¶21

3 . if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

¶22

4 . this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

¶23

12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:

¶24

( 1 ) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles;

¶25

( 2 ) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and

¶26

( 3 ) after taking proper security.

¶27

13. For this purpose, the court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 CrPC. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the court under Section 451 CrPC to impose any other appropriate condition.

¶28

14. In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to be kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the court may direct that such articles be handed back to the investigating officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the investigating officer should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the purposes of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can be followed.

¶29

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, 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.

¶30

18. 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,

¶31

¶32

appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.

¶33

The heinous crime has been committed is not a ground for nonreleasing of the vehicle. Further, the evidentiary value of the vehicle has to be protected. For this purpose, the concerned Magistrate is at liberty to prepare panchnama etc. and by bonding the owner, in whose favour, the vehicle is to be released. The Magistrate is required to protect the power of confiscation through indemnity bond, solvent sureties etc.

¶34

In view of above observation and direction, the impugned order dated 04.05.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.21 of 2019, arising out of S.T. Case No.30 of 2019 (G.R. Case No.56 of 2019), in connection with Ghaghra P.S. Case No.126 of 2018 is, hereby, set aside.

¶35

The court below is directed to pass an appropriate order within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order after considering the discussion and observation made hereinabove.

¶36

With above observations and directions, the present revision application being Criminal Revision No.672 of 2019 stands disposed off.

¶37

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶38

Amar/-

Hans Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hans Kumar Singh 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

Most Poonam Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary H R D Department

Subikash Mukherjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suraj Kumar Sharma Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Arghya Bagchi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shakti Dhar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand