Allowed

Sri Muhammed Safwan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2021CRL.RP/676/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court allowed the release of a seized Royal Enfield motorcycle to its registered owner by setting aside the trial court's order and imposing conditions including an indemnity bond without prejudice to trial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside, the application for release of the vehicle is allowed, and the investigating officer is directed to release the motorbike to the petitioner subject to an indemnity bon

Sri Muhammed Safwan Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.676 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MUHAMMED SAFWAN S/O. UMMER MAHAMOOD, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, AL RAHMA, KOTTAYAM, MALABAR POST, MANGATIIDAM, KANNUR, KERALA – 670 643.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI MAHESH KUMAR K.M., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUDDUGUNTEPALYA P.S., REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

... RESPONDENT * * *

¶14

(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, H.C.G.P.)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 4-3-2021 PASSED BY THE XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES AT BENGALURU (CCH-33) IN CRIME NO.214 OF 2019 ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 451 READ WITH SECTION 457 OF THE CR.P.C.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner/RC owner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the order dated 4-3-2021 passed by the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases, Bengaluru, in Crime No.214 of 2019 for having rejected the application filed under Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing Royal Enfield Bullet, bearing Registration No.KL-58 X-0891.

¶20

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that, since accused No.1 was found in possession of MDMA ecstasy pills and caffeine, the Police arrested him and seized the motorbike belongs to the petitioner. Investigation is going on. The petitioner, being R.C. owner of the motorbike,

¶22

¶23

filed application before the Trial Court for releasing the motorbike. The Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner without giving any proper reason. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a friend of accused No.1. As a friend, the petitioner handed over the motorbike to accused No.1 when he came to Bengaluru. The petitioner was not aware of accused No.1 carrying contraband articles in his motorbike. Accused No.1 is released by the Trial Court. Investigation has been completed and chargesheet has been filed. Vehicle is no more required for investigation. The petitioner is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and he will produce the motorbike as and when called for by the Trial Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶25

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the petition.

¶26

¶27

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, the petitioner is said to be owner of the motorbike. The motorbike is also covered with the insurance policy at the time of seizure. The only contention of the respondent-State is that the petitioner is from Kerala State, if the motorbike is released, it is not possible to secure the vehicle for the purpose of trial. Police have investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet. Accused No.1 is facing trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2002 SUPP (3) SCR 39 has categorically stated that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the Police Stations for a long period and directed the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders for return of said vehicles as early as possible. Therefore, I am of the view that by imposing certain conditions, if the motorbike is released to the petitioner, i.e. to RC owner of the motorbike, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, the order passed by the

¶28

¶29

Trial Court rejecting the application only on the ground that the petitioner is from Kerala is not acceptable and the same requires to be set aside.

¶30

Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The order

¶31

dated 4-3-2021 passed by the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases, Bengaluru, in Crime No.214 of 2019 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court is allowed. Investigating Officer is directed to release Royal Enfield Bullet, bearing Registration No.KL-58 X-0891 to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

i. The petitioner shall execute an Indemnity Bond for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, and

¶33

¶34

ii. The petitioner shall produce the motorbike as and when called for by the Trial Court for the purpose of identification and he shall not change the identity of the motorbike until disposal of the main case.

¶35

Further, the Police are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai’s case before releasing the motorbike to the petitioner by taking photographs and preparing detailed panchanama.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

kvk

Sri Muhammed Safwan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muhammed Safwan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.M.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt v Kamalamma Vs State of Karnataka

Srikanta v Vs State of Karnataka

Karthik Vs Sri T Yadva Murthy

Smt Divya a Vs Sri Adiveppa Magadum

Sri Gangadhara Vs the State of Karnataka