Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P No.3866 of 2023

Vijay Kumar aged about 40 years, son of Hira Lal, resident of Vidya Niwas, Bharatpuri, Piraliya Road, Ranchi, Post Office and Police Station Lalpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶5

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.

¶7

Order No.05/Dated- 05.02.2025

¶8

Present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponds to Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing of the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by A.C.J.M., Koderma, whereby and where under a Tata Motor Vehicle (Registration No. JH-01-1001) of petitioner has been declined to be released in favour of the petitioner.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the police of Chandwara Police Station in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case No. 03 of 2023 dated 06.01.2023 registered for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the I.P.C. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that abovementioned vehicle was returning from Shekhpura after unloading the explosive substance and when the vehicle reached near the Urva More, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver, met with an accident. It is further submitted that on the application for release of the vehicle, the concerned Court also called for a report from concerned police station and found that no explosive substance was loaded on the vehicle at the time of said accident. In spite of that the concerned Magistrate has rejected the application for release of the commercial vehicle of the petitioner. It is further submitted that due to false submission of the learned A.P.P. before the concerned Court of Magistrate that the vehicle was

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

loaded with explosive substance as well as failure of learned Magistrate to properly consider the report submitted by the police impugned order was passed. The application filed by the petitioner before the concerned Court for release of vehicle, clearly states that the vehicle was not loaded with any kind of explosive substance rather it was returning after unloading some goods. It was just a simple case of vehicular accident. Therefore, impugned order is fit to be set aside. Petitioner also undertakes to produce the vehicle at the time of trial of the case as and when required and will not change the identity and colour etc. of the vehicle or otherwise destroy it and will not sell it to any other person, during pendency of this case.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has also filed counter-affidavit and fairly submitted that at the time of alleged accident, the vehicle was not loaded with any kind of explosive substance rather it met with an accident causing injury to the informant who happens to be a teacher of a school.

¶13

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below has swayed upon wrong submission of the learned A.P.P. made before him that the vehicle was loaded with explosive substance at the time of accident, therefore, declined to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. It is clarified here by the learned A.P.P. conducting this case by filing counteraffidavit that the offending vehicle met with an accident for which the vehicle was detained by the Chandwara Police Station. Since the date of accident i.e. on 06.01.2023. The vehicle appears to be a commercial vehicle which should not be detained for a long period in open space at the police station.

¶14

In view of the above discussion and reasons, impugned order dated 18.08.2023 passed by learned A.C.J.M. Koderma is hereby, set aside and this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶15

Further, the above vehicle (Registration No. JH-01-1001) seized in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case No. 03 of 2023 is directed to be released in favour of its registered owner after verification

¶16

Page 2 of 3

¶17

of vehicular papers on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000,00/(Ten lakhs) with one surety along with an undertaking that the petitioner shall not sell the aforesaid vehicle during the pendency of the case and shall not change the colour of the vehicle or destroy the vehicle and produce it before the concerned trail court as and when required.

¶18

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶19

Amar/-

¶20

Page 3 of 3

Vijay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Jyoti Priya Alias Jyoti Priya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sharwan Kumar Saw Alias Sharvan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Avinash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gulam Gous Alias Gula Goush Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Khursheed Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Singh Alias Ashok Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Factory Inspector