Allowed

Manoj Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC6 Sept 2016CRLREV/587/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed a criminal revision petition to set aside an order rejecting an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of a seized vehicle, directing its release subject to specified conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 16.07.2016 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to produce original documents and furnish security of Rs. 1,00,000. The vehicle is directed to be released subject to speci

Manoj Kumar Rout Vs State of Orissa — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV NO. 587 of 2016

¶3

From the order dated 16.07.2016 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.(P), Kujang in Criminal Misc. Case No.85 of 2016.

¶4

¶5

Manoj Kumar Rout ……… Petitioner -VersusState of Orissa ……… Opp. party For Petitioner: - Mr. Bichitra Narayan Satapathy For Opp. party: - Mr. Jyoti Prakash Patra Addl. Standing Counsel -------------------P R E S E N T:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

¶7

-----------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Hearing and Judgment- 06.09.2016

¶8

¶9

S. K. Sahoo, J . The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16.07.2016 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.(P), Kujang in Criminal Misc. Case No.85 of 2016 which arises out of Abhayachandpur P.S. Case No.79 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.509 of 2016 in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle.

¶10

¶11

As it appears in connection with commission of an offence under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, one Mahindra Car (MAXICB) TUV 300-T6+ bearing registration No.OD-05-R-2357 was seized by S.I. of Police, Abhayachandpur Police Station on 03.07.2016.

¶12

The petitioner filed an application under section 457 Cr.P.C. before the learned J.M.F.C.(P), Kujanga which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No.85 of 2016 praying for a direction to the IIC, Abhayachandpur Police Station to release the seized vehicle in his favour on the ground that he was the bonafide registered owner and he is no way connected with the alleged crime and the condition of the vehicle was deteriorating day by day lying abandoned outside the police station campus under rain and sun.

¶13

The learned Magistrate called for a report from the Investigating Officer and accordingly, one Kailash Chandra Behura, S.I. of Abhayachandpur Police Station submitted a report on 12.07.2016 indicating that the vehicle might not be released on the following grounds:-

¶14

(i) The investigation is under progress and one FIR named accused is yet to be arrested; (ii) Further it is not yet ascertained that who drove the vehicle on the date of occurrence as

¶15

¶16

the owner of the vehicle avoiding police interrogation; (iii) The involvement of the owner in the crime is yet to be verified.

¶17

The learned Magistrate relying upon the aforesaid report rejected the petition filed by the petitioner.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not an accused in the case and during course of investigation, as per the report submitted by the S.I. of Abhayachandpur Police Station, materials came against four accused persons namely, (1) Jitu @ Jitendra @ Niranjan Parida, (2) Chandan Behera, (3) Tapan Swain and (4) Rajendra Behera. The vehicle of the petitioner is detained in the police station being exposed to the sun and rain and therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai –Vrs.- State of Gujarat reported in (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444 , the vehicle should be released in favour of the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for release of the vehicle.

¶20

Considering the submissions made by the respective parties and taking note of the fact that the vehicle was seized in connection with the case since 03.07.2016 and the petitioner is

¶21

¶22

not an accused in the case as per the report of the S.I., Abhayachandpur Police Station, keeping in view the ratio laid down in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai -Vrs.- State of Gujarat (supra), I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the seized vehicle at the police station for a long period which being kept open is prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions.

¶23

Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned J.M.F.C.(P), Kujanga in Criminal Misc. Case No.85 of 2016 dated 16.07.2016 is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is hereby set aside.

¶24

It is directed that the aforesaid vehicle shall be released in favour of the petitioner subject to following conditions:-

¶25

(i) the petitioner shall produce the original registration certificate, insurance papers before the concerned police station which shall be verified properly and true attested copies thereof shall be retained by the investigating officer/I.I.C. of the police station;

¶26

(ii) the petitioner shall furnish property security worth of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh);

¶27

(iii) the petitioner shall keep the vehicle insured at all times till the conclusion of the trial and produce

¶28

¶29

the insurance certificates before the Trial Court as and when required;

¶30

(iv) the petitioner shall not change the colour or any part of the engine and chassis numbers of the vehicle;

¶31

(v) the petitioner shall furnish two photographs of the vehicle before taking delivery of the same;

¶32

(vi) the petitioner shall not transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of any other person;

¶33

(vii) the petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the Court as and when called upon;

¶34

(viii) the petitioner shall not allow the vehicle to be used in the commission of any offence.

¶35

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision petition is

¶36

disposed of.

¶37

S.K. Sahoo, J.

¶38

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 6^th September, 2016/Sisir

Manoj Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa

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

Dillip Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Orissa

Gurubari Naik Vs Jyochhana Naik

Chiranjib Mohapatra Vs Pradipta Ku.Mohapatr

Sarbeswar Nayak Vs State

Golakha B.Mohanty Vs Bharat Ch.Sethi

Kailash Chandra Panda Vs State of Orissa