Allowed

MD Manzar Akhtar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Jan 2024Cr.M.P./356/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought release of 15 tons of seized coal after the Magistrate rejected the prayer as case property in a coal theft case. The IO's report showed the petitioner's ownership documents were genuine and the State did not dispute this. The High Court quashed the rejection order and directed conditional release.

What the court decided

AI extract

MD Manzar Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Cr.M.P. No.356 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 356 of 2022

¶4

Md. Manzar Akhtar, Aged about 45 years, son of Mahmood Khan, resident of Old Market, Village –Chandrapura, P.O. & P.S. –Chandrapura, District –Bokaro. .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party

¶7

P R E S E N T

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

¶10

By the Court:-

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to release the 15 tons of coal seized in connection with Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 151 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1332 of 2018 which was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat vide order dated 10.06.2019.

¶13

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing registration no. UP 78CN-6342 and while the said truck was used for transporting 15 tons of coal, the same was seized by police on the allegation that the same is stolen coal as no valid document could be produced regarding the ownership of the coal loaded in the said truck. The learned Judicial Magistrate - 1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat observed that since the investigation of the case is going on and the case relates to illegal extraction and

¶14

¶15

Cr.M.P. No.356 of 2022

¶16

theft of coal and the coal is the case property, and by thus observing, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat rejected the Miscellaneous Crl. Application No.2155 of 2019 vide order dated 10.06.2019 and also another application vide Miscellaneous Crl. Application No. 3091 of 2019 which was filed with a prayer to press for hearing the Miscellaneous Crl. Application No. 2155 of 2019.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to annexure-3 at page no.28 of the brief which is the copy of the report submitted by the I.O. of the case which shows that the documents produced by the petitioner in respect of the ownership of the coal to be genuine. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial of the case is going on at present and there is no likelihood of the same being concluded in near future and when undisputedly the petitioner is the owner of the coal, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat has committed a gross error by rejecting the prayer for release of the coal. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 151 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1332 of 2018 be quashed and set aside and appropriate orders be passed for release of the said coal.

¶18

The learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that the document of ownership of coal was found to be genuine by the I.O. of the case.

¶19

¶20

Cr.M.P. No.356 of 2022

¶21

Considering the fact that prima facie it appears that the petitioner is the owner of the coal, hence this Court is of the considered view that the learned court below has committed a gross illegality by rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for release of the coal in question. More so because as there is no one other than the petitioner claiming ownership of the seized property. Hence, the same being not sustainable in law is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Accordingly the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 151 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1332 of 2018 is quashed and set aside.

¶23

The learned trial court is directed to release the 15 tons of coal seized in connection with Bokaro Themal P.S. Case No. 151 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1332 of 2018 on the following conditions:

¶24

i. The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond of Rs.1,00,000/with two solvent sureties, to produce the coal if ordered by the court.

¶25

ii. The petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the coal during the pendency of the case.

¶26

iii. The petitioner shall not change or tamper with the identification of the coal in any manner during the pendency of the case.

¶27

iv. Any other condition, if any, to be imposed by the trial court.

¶28

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is

¶29

allowed.

¶30

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶31

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15^th January, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

MD Manzar Akhtar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

MD Manzar Akhtar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Virendra Prasad Mehta Vs The Chairman Jharkhand Academic Council And Ors.

Ram Lakhan Mehta And Anr. Vs State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Panchayati Raj Ministry And Ors.

Management of Tubes Division O Vs Their Workman Shri Goutam Giri

Saumik Dasgupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Dina Nath Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samir Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand