Ghadiya Ismaeel Suleman vs State Of Gujarat

Samir J. Dave, J

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State. With the consent of learned advocates on both the sides, the matter is heard finally.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent-authority to release the muddamal vehicle being Ashok Leyland Truck bearing Registration No. GJ-24-X-5883, which was seized in connection with the complaint being FIR No.11822021220643 registered with Navsari Rural Police Station for the offences punishable u/s.6(A)(1), 6(A)(3), 6(A)(4) and 8(4) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, sections 11(1)(D), 11(1)(E), 11(1)(F) and 11(1) (G) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and section 192 of the M.V. Act.

Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and has been named as accused in the impugned FIR. The cattle were transported for agricultural / animal husbandry purposes. However, the muddamal vehicle has been detained only on the presumption that the cattle were being transported for slaughter purpose but without any basis. He submitted that if interim custody of the muddamal vehicle is not handed over to the petitioner, it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner as the condition of the vehicle would get damaged substantially with the passage of time and probably, by the end of trial, the value of the muddamal vehicle may also become ‘Nil’ as the vehicle is lying under the open sky. It was further submitted that this Court has ordered release of muddamal vehicles in instances under section 98(2) of the amended Act. It was, accordingly, urged that this Court may order release of the muddamal vehicle in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on suitable terms and conditions.

3.1 Attention of the Court was invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein the Court has ordered release of muddamal vehicle while lamenting the scenario of a number of vehicles having been kept unattended and becoming scrap within the police station premises or at any other designated places.

Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the muddamal vehicle was involved in the commission of alleged offence and accordingly, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.

Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the documents on record. Considering the facts of the case, it would be beneficial to refer to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, particularly, on the following observations;

“15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.

However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.

In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of application for return of such vehicles.”

Considering the facts of the present case and the principle rendered in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), this Court is of the opinion that if the interim custody of muddamal vehicle is handed over to the petitioner on certain terms and conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent-authority is directed to release the muddamal vehicle being Ashok Leyland Truck bearing Registration No. GJ-24-X-5883 on condition that the petitioner ;

(i) shall furnish, by way of security, Bond and Solvent Surety of the amount equivalent to what has been mentioned in the seizure memo / panchnama;

(ii) shall file an Undertaking before the trial Court concerned that he shall not alienate or transfer or sell the vehicle in any manner to any third party till the conclusion of trial and shall also produce the vehicle as and when directed by the trial Court;

(iii) in the event of commission of any subsequent offence, the muddamal vehicle shall stand confiscated.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.