Bisundas Binjhiya @ Bisun Sidar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C against the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Additional Judge, Katghora to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba in Sessions Trial No.10/2017 whereby, the application filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C for interim custody of the motorcycle i.e. Splendor bearing registration No.CG 15 CQ/8982 was dismissed.

Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the registered owner of the motorcycle i.e. Splendor bearing registration No.CG 15 CQ/8982, which has been seized by the police for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B/34 IPC in Crime No.102/2016 and the Petitioner has been charged for such offence in Sessions Trial No.10/2017 for which, he has preferred an Appeal bearing No.358/2018, which is pending before the Court. Since the said Appeal is pending, vide judgment dated 22.02.2018, the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C was dismissed and a condition has been imposed that the vehicle shall be released after disposal of the said Appeal. He further submits that the Petitioner has already been granted bail and therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable and is against the proposition which is very well settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 and prays for grant of interim custody of the vehicle.

Shri Kesarwani, learned Counsel appearing for the State does not dispute the proposition laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (supra).

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the State and perused the documents annexed herewith carefully.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (supra), it has been categorically observed that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police ought not to be retained in custody of the court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary and the relevant para i.e. para-8 reads as under:-

“8. The question of proper custody of the seized article is raised in a number of matters. In Basavva Kom Dyanmangouda Patil v. State of Mysore [1977] 4 SCC 358, this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court observed as under:-

"4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the court and a just and proper order should be passed by the court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance."

Reverting back to the facts of the present case, this Court does not find any substantial ground to detain the vehicle as the Petitioner has already been granted bail and there is no purpose in detaining the said vehicle, therefore, it is directed that the concerned Court shall release the vehicle forthwith by imposing appropriate terms and conditions.

With the aforesaid observation, the Petition is accordingly allowed.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for necessary compliance.