Jagat Singh vs State of U.P.

N.L. Ganguly, J.—This is an application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure alleged owner of the Maruti Van bearing No. DAC 8544. The said vehicle was involved in a criminal case of illegal transportation of illecit liquor. The prosecution case is u/s 60 of Excise Act, pending in the Court of C.J.M. Pithoragarh. The incident is alleged to have been taken place on 6-11-90. The applicant submitted application before the court below for releasing the Maruti Van in his favour on the ground that he is owner of the vehicle. The application was rejected by the learned Magistrate and the revision filed by the applicant also failed. The reason for refusing to release of the vehicle is that the Maruti Van is a case property and this vehicle was used in transportation of the illecit liquor. Similarly, a truck bearing no UPD 172 was also apprehended and seized by the police in connection with the same offence. It also alleged that in the truck in question illicit liquor was being transported. The learned Magistrate directed to release the truck, aforementioned, in favour of the owner of the truck on his furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the court of C.J.M. Pithoragarh. The reason for release of the truck was that if the truck is permitted to stand in the police lock up idle which may get rusted and ruined. It appears that the learned Magistrate applied a different sandard while rejecting the application for release of the Maruti Van which too was involved in the same crime and if the same was also allowed to remain in the police station it was also likely to be ruined. The reason for not releasing the vehicle in question by the learned "courts below" was that it was a case property and the witnesses may need the same for identifying in the proceedings. The learned Counsel for the applicant states that till date, no case has been initiated before the court. About seven months are over, nothing has been done in the case and the vehicle is standing at the police station getting rusted and has already become unserviceable for lack of care of the vehicle. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that his client is willing to file an undertaking before the court below to produce the vehicle in question when-ever needed before the court below or Investigation Officer, when so directed. He shall not transfer the vehicle for the period of next four years without permission of the court. He shall not change the nature and appearance of the vehicle during the said period. In the circumstances of the case, I consider that no useful purpose would be served to keep the vehicle lying at the police station. The investigation would not suffer if the vehicle is available at the time of investigation and in the prosecution if needed in the same condition. It would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case to direct that the vehicle Maruti Van No. DAC 8544 may be released in favour of the applicant, provided he furnishes a personal bond for Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rs. One lack twenty five thousand only) and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM Pithoragarh. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragrah shall verify from the record of the transport authority that the vehicle in question is recorded in the name of the applicant. Before actual release of the vehicle, the Magistrate shall see that the affidavit is submitted by the applicant with undertaking, mentioned above.

With these observations, the application is disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel within a week on payment of usual charges.