Karan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

(2025:JHHC:27730)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.23 of 2021

------

Karan Singh, aged about 26 years, son of Satyatendra Singh @ Satyender Narayan Singh, resident of Village Belderhi, P.O. and P.S. – Shikarhata, District: Bhojpur, (Bihar) … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

… The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. SC I Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC I ------

¶7

P R E S E N T

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶10

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.11.2020 passed in Criminal Revision No.24 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla rejected the Criminal Revision, which was filed challenging the order dated 07.09.2020 passed in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.20 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.144 of 2020 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for release of the seized vehicle being Mahindra Scorpio S3 bearing Registration No.BR-03PA-7494.

¶11

The brief fact of the case is that the said Mahindra Scorpio S3 bearing Registration No.BR-03PA-7494 was seized by the police in connection with the said Gumla P.S. Case No.20 of 2020 while escorting a truck in which 739 kg of

¶12

¶13

Cr. M.P. No.23 of 2021

¶14

(2025:JHHC:27730)

¶15

Ganja was being transported and the persons travelling in the said vehicle were also carrying illegal fire-arms. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla considered that the said vehicle is an exhibit of the case, hence, rejected the prayer for release of the said vehicle. The learned Sessions Judge, Gumla considered that in connection with seizure of 739 kg of Ganja, a separate case being Gumla P.S. Case No.19 of 2020 was registered and this case has been registered only for the offences punishable under Section 25 (1-B) a/26 of the Arms Act and rejected the Criminal Revision.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is the owner of the said Mahindra Scorpio S3 bearing Registration No.BR-03PA-7494. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the fire-arms recovered from the co-accused persons sitting in the said vehicle but no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is then submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case and the trial of the case is going on and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future. It is further submitted that the seized vehicle has been kept under open sky within the premises of police station and there is every chance of damage being caused to the said vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 9 SCC 283 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that as it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period as it will be subjected to natural decay, which will result in deterioration of its value. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

¶17

¶18

Cr. M.P. No.23 of 2021

¶19

(2025:JHHC:27730)

¶20

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P.

¶21

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that indisputably the petitioner is the owner of the said Mahindra Scorpio S3 bearing Registration No.BR-03PA-7494. The vehicle in question, has been in custody of the police, and is lying under open sky as submitted at the bar and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla has committed a gross illegality by failing to consider that there is no justifiable reason to keep the seized vehicle in detention when the petitioner is ready and willing to undertake to produce the vehicle as and when required by the court concerned.

¶23

Hence, the order dated 27.11.2020 passed in Criminal Revision No.24 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla is quashed and set aside and for the self-same reasons, the order dated 07.09.2020 passed in connection with Misc. Criminal Application No.108 of 2020 arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.20 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.144 of 2020, being also not sustainable in law, is also quashed and set aside.

¶24

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla or its successor court is directed to release the said Mahindra Scorpio S3 bearing Registration No.BR03PA-7494 in favour of the petitioner on the petitioner submitting an undertaking on the following terms and conditions: -

¶25

i. The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond of Rs.10,00,000/- with two solvent sureties undertaking that the

¶26

¶27

Cr. M.P. No.23 of 2021

¶28

(2025:JHHC:27730)

¶29

petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the court in the trial court.

¶30

ii. The petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the said vehicle during the pendency of the case nor allow anybody else than him to drive the same.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33