Jawed Ansari @ Mohammad Jawed Ansari @ Md. Jawed Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Act, Giridih in Cyber Case No. 42 of 2024 (M.C.A. No.1172 of 2024) arising out of Giridih (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for release of Honda S.P. motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-21M-2377.

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner who is one of the accused person of the case filed a petition in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Act, Giridih for release of the said motorcycle but I.O. of the case submitted that the vehicle is required for further investigation and objected to the release of the same and accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Act, Giridih rejected the prayer for release of the said motorcycle vide order dated 10.09.2024 passed in M.C.A. No.1172 of 2024 arising out of Giridih (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inter alia has observed that power under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously and also opined that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station for a long period. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that charge sheet has already been submitted and cognizance has been taken in the case so, as the investigation of the case is over, hence, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the Honda motorcycle under open sky, within the premises of the police station, which will diminish its value. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner undertakes not to change the colour or identification of the Honda motorcycle nor will sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle during the pendency of the case nor allow anybody else than him to ride the same. The petitioner also undertakes that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish indemnity bond of Rs.1,50,000/- with two solvent sureties and also undertakes that the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the court and will not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner during the pendency of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the prayer made by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that though the investigation is already over but still the production of the vehicle may be required during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (supra) that it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at the police station for a long period. The undisputed fact remains that charge sheet has already been submitted in this case and investigation of the case is over. The fact also remains undisputed that the petitioner is the owner of the motorcycle in question.

Under such circumstances, there is no justification for the Honda Motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-21M-2377 to be kept under open sky within the premises of the police station, when the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is the owner of the same.

Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Act, Giridih has committed gross illegality in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for release of the seized vehicle, in his favour.

Accordingly, the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Act, Giridih in Cyber Case No. 42 of 2024 (M.C.A. No.1172 of 2024) arising out of Giridih (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024 is quashed and set aside.

The Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Act, Giridih is directed to release the Honda Motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-21M-2377 in favour of the petitioner on the petitioners’ submitting an undertaking on the following terms and conditions:

i. The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond of Rs. 1,50,000/-with two solvent sureties undertaking to produce the said motorcycle as and when directed by the trial court.

ii. The petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle during the pendency of the case nor allow anybody else than him to ride the same.

iii. The petitioner shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner during the pendency of the case.

iv. Any other condition, if any, to be imposed by the trial court.

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.