Allowed

Deepa Rai Nonso v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2020CRL.P/4011/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, wife of accused and registered owner of a car allegedly used in drug seizure, filed a petition to quash an order rejecting her release application. Court allowed the petition, directing release of the vehicle upon police verification of documents post-investigation completion.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; vehicle to be released to petitioner after verification of registration certificates by jurisdictional police.

Deepa Rai Nonso Vs State of Karnataka by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

CRL.P. No.4011 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4011 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DEEPA RAI NONSO W/O NANSO JOACHIN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/A: # 46, MARAGONDANAHALLI BIDARAHALLI, K.R.PURAM BANGALORE-560036 .. PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 .. RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2020 MADE IN CR.NO.493/2019 BY THE XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 451 R/W 457 OF CRPC AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 451 R/W 457 OF CRPC AND ORDER TO RELEASE THE RED COLOR TOYOTA COROLLA CAR BEARING NO.KA-42M-1351, TO THE CUSTODY OF THE PETITIONER.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.P. No.4011 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for setting aside the order dated 7.8.20 in Crime No.493/2019 passed by XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The said order being passed on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 r/w 457 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

The case of the prosecution was that the Police Inspector attached to Narcotic Drugs Wing, CCB, Bangalore, on receiving credible information from his informer on 24.11.2019 that a Nigerian person in Horamavu had stored cocaine for selling, the said Inspector having informed his superior officers and secured panchas and staff members raided the spot and seized 28 gms of cocaine and 0.15 gms of LSD strips, mobile, cash of Rs.10,000/- and a Toyota car. This Toyota Corolla bearing registration NO.KA-42 M-1351 is said to be used for commission

¶21

of the offence, which was sought for release by the petitioner by filing an application under Section 451

¶22

CRL.P. No.4011 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

and 457 of Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the impugned order. Hence the present petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶25

The petitioner is the wife of the accused. The application had been filed contending that the petitioner is the owner of the car and she requires the same for her use. Application came to be rejected by the trial court on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any document to establish her ownership. Since the vehicle had been used for commission of offence it was required to be kept under the custody of the court pending the trial.

¶26

Sri.Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has produced a photocopy of the Registration certificate at page 28 of the petition and the petitioner has handed over the original of the said Registration certificate to the learned counsel, Mr.Nishit Kumar Shetty and it is on the basis of this he submits that the document

¶27

CRL.P. No.4011 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

produced at page 28 is a true copy of the original Registration certificate.

¶30

Having perused the Registration certificate, it is seen that the petitioner’s name is mentioned as the owner of the car Corolla Altis bearing registration No.KA-42 M 1351. The other details regarding the chassis number and the engine number are also found on the said Registration certificate. In view of the same, in the event of release of the vehicle, the ownership of the petitioner could be verified by the jurisdictional police on examination of the car.

¶31

As regards the finding of the trial Court that vehicle is required to be under the custody of the court pending trial, I am of the considered opinion that the car is not being tried nor is subjected to any prosecution.

¶32

On enquiry with the learned HCGP, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, submits that the investigation in respect of the said car has been completed and car is not

¶33

CRL.P. No.4011 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

required for any further investigation. In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that there would be no requirement to detain the car in custody and the same could be released in favour of the petitioner. However, at the time of such release the original of the certificate of registration, the corresponding chassis number and engine number mentioned therein would have to be verified and certified, only then the vehicle could be released in favour of the petitioner. The jurisdictional police are also directed to comply with the dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶36

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai –v- State of Gujarat

¶37

reported in 2002(10) SCC 283 .

¶38

The petition is accordingly allowed.

¶39

Sd/- JUDGE

¶40

Deepa Rai Nonso v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepa Rai Nonso v. State of Karnataka by

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

Smt. Sharadamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Sharief @ Khasim Vs the State of Karnataka

Paul Vincent S/O Vincent, C.P, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Renold Raj Devaraj Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sandesh v Patkar Vs the State of Karnataka