Allowed

Sathish.S v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Madras HC16 Jun 2021WP(MD)/10141/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the release of the petitioner's vehicle seized in connection with a liquor case. The court imposed conditions including a security deposit, document production, and an undertaking not to alienate the vehicle, with a deadline for final adjudication orders.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle released subject to deposit of Rs.5,000, production of ownership documents, and affidavit of undertaking not to alienate the vehicle.

Sathish.S Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.10141 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.06.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU W.P(MD)No.10141 of 2021

¶4

S.Sathish

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Ramanathapuram District.

¶7

2.The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN65-AE-1072, which was seized by the 2^nd respondent on 08.05.2021 in pursuance to the registration of the case in Crime No.358 of 2021, on the file of the 2^nd respondent forthwith in accordance with law, by considering the representation dated 11.06.2021.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senthil Murugan

¶10

For Respondents : Mr. P.Thilakkumar Standing Counsel O R D E R

¶11

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle, viz., Yamaha FZS BSIV bike, bearing Reg.No.TN65-AE-1072, which was seized by the 2^nd respondent on 8.05.2021, in pursuance to the registration of the case in Crime No.358 of 2021, on the file of the 2^nd respondent, forthwith, in accordance with law, by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 11.06.2021.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for both sides.

¶13

The petitioner's vehicle was seized in connection with illegal transportation of Liquor bottles (180 ML x 48). The enquiry in this regard is still pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner affirms before this Court that the petitioner's vehicle was not involved in any previous incident of similar nature.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

1/3

¶16

W.P(MD)No.10141 of 2021

¶17

4.The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record. If this submission turns out to be false, the order now passed by this Court would stand automatically recalled and the petitioner will be visited with serious consequences. I am of the view that no purpose will be served by keeping the vehicle in question in the custody of the respondents. If the vehicle is kept in open space and exposed to sun light and rain, it would lose its value. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the said vehicle subject to the following conditions.

¶18

5 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions.

¶19

“(i)The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the credit of Government of Tamil Nadu, CMPRF in IOB, Secretariat Branch, Chennai-9 (Account No.11720 10000 00070, IFSCCode: IOBA0001172), without prejudice to his rights and contentions;

¶20

(ii)The petitioner is directed to produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle.

¶21

(iii)The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit of undertaking that he will cause production of the vehicle in question before the competent/concerned respondent ( as the case may be) as and when called for and further, he will not alienate the vehicle in question till the appropriate proceedings initiated are completed;

¶22

(iv) On compliance of the above conditions, the second respondent is directed to release the seized vehicle viz., Yamaha FZS BSIV bike, bearing Reg.No.TN65-AE-1072, to the petitioner.

¶23

(v)The first respondent is directed to pass final orders in the adjudication proceedings, if any, within a period of 45 days;

¶24

(vi)This order for the release of the vehicle can be pressed into service by the petitioner only if the vehicle is not in the custody of the criminal Court. If the vehicle is in the custody of the concerned criminal Court of appropriate jurisdiction, then option is given to the petitioner to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate to get release of the vehicle, by filing necessary application in the manner known to law and in accordance with law; and

¶25

(vii)Inasmuch as the vehicle viz., Yamaha FZS BSIV bike, bearing Reg.No.TN-65-AE-1072, is seized by the second respondent on 08.05.2021, the aforesaid order is to be complied with within a

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

2/3

¶28

W.P(MD)No.10141 of 2021

¶29

period of one week, if no order of adjudication is passed as on today. No costs.

¶30

Assistant Registrar ()

¶31

// True Copy //

¶32

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶33

MPK

¶34

Note :(i) In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶35

¶36

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Ramanathapuram District.

¶37

2.The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-19539[F] dated 17/06/2021 )

¶39

W.P(MD)No.10141 of 2021

¶40

16.06.2021

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶42

3/3

Sathish.S v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathish.S v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.A1 Shoe Mart Vs the Asst.Commissioner (St)

M.Alagar Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Sekar.M Vs the Regional Transport Officer

S.Tamil Selvi Vs Muthurani Lavanya

Ragavan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mahendran @ Magendran.v Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police