C.M. Nagendra vs State

H.S. Kempanna, J.—Heard. Having regard to the matter involved, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP, it is taken up for final disposal.

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.9.2013 passed in S.C. No. 269/2013 by the XI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the application filed under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner seeking for release of his Autorickshaw bearing Regn. No. KA-03-D-8635.

The respondent/police during the course of investigation of the case filed against the accused seized the Autorickshaw bearing Regn. No. KA-03-D-8635 and reported the said seizure to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. When the matter was pending before the Committal Magistrate, the present petitioner filed an application u/ss. 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. praying to release the Autorickshaw bearing Regn. No. KA-03-D-8635 seized in the case to his interim custody on the ground that he is the registered owner of the case. The said application was not disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in the mean-time the case of the accused came to be committed to the Court of Sessions. After the case came to be committed to the court of Sessions, the present petitioner again made a fresh application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. praying to release the Autorickshaw bearing Regn. No. KA-03-D-8635 to his interim custody.

In the application inter alia among other things it was contended that he is the registered owner of the said Autorickshaw. He had bought the Autorickshaw by raising loan from a financier. He was required to pay a sum of Rs. 4,280/- p.m. as installment towards the loan raised by him. On account of the Autorickshaw having been seized in the case he has not been able to pay the installments which otherwise he would have paid by running his Autorickshaw. He contended that without his knowledge the driver has taken the Auto which has been used in the commission of the offence. As he is the registered owner of the vehicle it being an mechanically propelled vehicle, it cannot be kept idle and it has to be kept in road in worthy condition as otherwise it would become junk and therefore, he sought for interim custody pending disposal of the trial in the case.

The application was opposed by the State.

The learned trial Judge on hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, by the impugned order rejected the application.

Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner is before this Court praying for releasing the vehicle to his interim custody.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends the petitioner is the registered owner of the Autorickshaw. It is not disputed to in the case. He has bought the said Autorickshaw by raising loan from a private financier. He has to pay monthly installment to the tune of Rs. 4,280/- p.m. He has not been able to pay the said amount to the financier on account of the Auto having been seized and kept idle in the police station. He further submitted as a registered owner if the vehicle is granted to his interim custody, he would produce the same before the Court as and when directed. He would also abide by any conditions that may be imposed on him for production of the vehicle before the Court. Hence, he prayed for releasing the vehicle to the interim custody of petitioner.

The learned HCGP opposed the request made by the petitioner

The petitioner being the registered owner of the Autorickshaw bearing No. KA-03-D-8635 is not disputed. He has also produced copy of the Registration Certificate along with the petition which is at Annexure-D. That fortifies the stand of the petitioner that he is the registered owner of the Autorickshaw. Autorickshaw being a mechanically propelled vehicle, it cannot be kept idle and it has to be kept in good running condition. That is the law laid down by this Court also as otherwise, it would become junk.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he would abide by any conditions that would be imposed on him. The only ground on which the application of the petitioner is rejected by the Trial Judge is that the prosecution will not be able to secure the Autorickshaw if released to the custody of the petitioner at the time of trial. That could be meted out by imposing suitable conditions on him. As the petitioner is the registered owner there is no justification to decline his request for granting the Autorickshaw to his interim custody as he will be Custodia Legis in this case. In that view of the matter the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner cannot be sustained and the application filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

ORDER

1) Criminal Petition is allowed;

2) The impugned order passed by the Trial Judge rejecting the application filed by the petitioner u/ss. 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. is set aside;

3) The said application is allowed. The Autorickshaw bearing Regn. No. KA-03-D-8635 is ordered to be released to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to the petitioner executing an indemnity bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Judge subject to the following conditions:-

i) He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial Court;

ii) He shall not change the colour or the identity features of the vehicle and shall not sell the same till the conclusion of the trial in the case.