Allowed

Uday Kant Srivastava v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Aug 2023Cr.Rev./704/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision allowed against the rejection of an application for releasing a seized Bank Cash Van. The Court held that detaining the vehicle indefinitely diminishes its utility and cited Supreme Court precedents to remit the matter to the lower court to decide the application afresh based on appropriate bond and guarantee.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was allowed and the matter was remitted to the court below to dispose of the application for the release of the vehicle afresh in accordance with the Apex Court guidelines.

Uday Kant Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 704 of 2023

¶3

Uday @ Udy Kant Srivastava … …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … …Opp. Party ---------

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶5

For the Petitioner : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate. : Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, Advocate. : Ms. Saba Ali, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P. ---------

¶6

Order No. 05/ dated 23.08.2023

¶7

This Cr. Revision has been preferred on behalf of petitioner against the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2923 of 2022, arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No. 82 of 2022, registered under Sections 279/337/338/304(A) and 427 of I.P.C. whereby the release for the vehicle of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶8

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. The petitioner is the authorized person on behalf of the registered owner of the vehicle. The release application for the vehicle of the petitioner has been rejected on this ground that the accused has not been nabbed till date and he was not cooperating in the investigation.

¶9

It is also further submitted that in this case the Claim Petitions for the compensation were also filed and same have been allowed and in compliance of the order compensation amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/- and Rs. 6,00,000/- were separately paid to the dependents of both the deceased. If the

¶10

¶11

vehicle is allowed to be detained in the Police Station concerned its utility will be diminished and the petitioner who is the registered owner of the same shall be deprived of the use of the vehicle. The impugned order passed by the court-below is based on perverse finding.

¶12

The learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended that as per police report which is Annexure No. 3 of this Cr. Revision Petition. In para 9 it is stated that the driver of the vehicle had fled away at the time of accident and he could not be traced till date. If the vehicle was released in favour of the registered owner, the appearance of the accused driver could not be ensured.

¶13

The F.I.R. of this case was lodged by the informant Guhi Ram Singh against the unknown with these allegations that on 20.04.2022 at 11 O’ clock his son Deepak Kumar Singh and his wife Dharmi Devi both had left the house by motorcycle No. JH09AY 7118 from the house for Jaina More. After having withdrawn the money from the Bank, they were going to the elder daughter of the informant. In the meantime, one vehicle No. JH10CD5799 (Bank Cash Van) which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit to the motorcycle of his son whereby his son and wife both sustained grievous injuries and both were declared dead in the Hospital and during investigation the name of the driver Ramesh Prasad Sharma,

¶14

¶15

Shiv Shankar Bhagat, Ramji Rai, A.C Ghar, Ruben Munda all the staff of Bank of India, Gomia Branch were also transpired. 6. The application for release of the vehicle was moved on behalf of the petitioner. This application was rejected by the court-below vide order dated 17.05.2022. The only ground of rejection is that the owner of the vehicle was not cooperating in the investigation and the driver of the vehicle will never appear if the vehicle was released in favour of the petitioner. 7. In the F.I.R. itself the offending vehicle involved in the accident is JH10CD5799. In the seizure memo which is at page 17 of this petition the offending vehicle is Bolero Camper Cash Van bearing registration No. JH10CD5799, Engine No.TNL4M79727, Chasis No. MAIRY2TNKL3M93132. 8. On behalf of the petitioner in supplementary affidavit the Annexure No.4 is the registration certificate of the vehicle. The registered owner of the vehicle JH10CD5799 bearing Engine No.TNL4M79727, Chasis No. MAIRY2TNKL3M93132 is M/s Security Engineers Pvt. Ltd. user Surendra Singh Rajput at Asha Bhawan, Purliya Road Patel Nagar, Chas Bokaro. 9. Annexure No. 5 is the details of the Directors/Signatory of the Company Usha Singh Rajput, Surendra Singh Rajput and Gaurav Rajput Company Security Engineers Private Limited. Page No. 9 is the letter issued by the Director of the Security Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Director Usha Singh Rajput. In this letter Mr. Udaykant Shrivastav has been authorised to initiate the proceeding in any court of law on behalf of the Company for

¶16

¶17

release of the vehicle No. JH10CD5799. At page No. 11 is the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Case No. 87 of 2022 dated 21.06.2023 and at page No. 13 is the award passed in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 86 of 2022 dated 21.06.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge cum Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T., Bokaro.

¶18

The Police report received from the Police Station concerned before the court-below is the Annexure No.3 of this petition. In this report the involvement of the vehicle in accident is admitted and it is also admitted that the vehicle was in the custody of the Police Station concerned in the said offence and it is also mentioned in this report that the driver of the vehicle had not appeared and owner were not cooperating him in the investigation and in para 3 it is also mentioned that the vehicle involved was not required in the investigation.

¶19

In view of the documents which are being filed on behalf the petitioner in support of the title of this vehicle and also keeping in view of the report of the Police Station concerned and also the award the passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the Claim Petitions, the court-below ought to have released the vehicle reason being the vehicle cannot be permitted to be detained in the Police Station concerned reason being its utility would be diminished if detained in Police Station concerned for an indefinite period and the petitioner would be deprived of their valuable right to use the vehicle.

¶20

¶21

The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Sunder Bhai Ambala

¶22

Desai vrs. State of Gujrat 2002 (10) SCC 283 :

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

In view of the legal propositions as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and also keeping in view the material on record, the impugned order passed by the court-below needs interference. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision deserves to be allowed.

¶29

This Cr. Revision is hereby allowed.

¶30

The matter is remitted back to the court-below to dispose of the application for release of the vehicle afresh in accordance with the observations given by this Court in this Judgment and also in the light of the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court

¶31

in Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai vrs. State of Gujrat (supra).

¶32

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶33

P.K.S.

Uday Kant Srivastava v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Kant Srivastava 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mayank Kumar Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Alias Manesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rinchu Tudu Alias Tudu Alias Paya Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajrun Khatoon Alias Ajrun Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravi Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand