Madhu Swarnkar vs The State of Bihar

Kishore Kumar Mandal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. Petitioner is facing charge punishable under diverse sections including Section 307 IPC vide S.T. No. 24/13. In connection therewith one Toyota Innova vehicle bearing registration mark and number BR-50-P-9090 was seized on 4.11.2012 copy whereof has been enclosed with the application. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the case was placed for consideration before the learned trial court vide S.T. No. 24/13. The petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of the said vehicle, approached the court for release of the said Toyota vehicle. The same was considered and rejected by order dated 18.2.2013. While rejecting the said application the trial court observed as under:--

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the principles adumbrated by the Apex Court in such matter in the case of Sunderbhari Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat since reported in 2002 (8) Supreme 525, submits that the seized vehicle can be released even in favour of the accused on certain conditions. Keeping the vehicle in the police station and allowing the same to dilapidate is not going to benefit anyone. It is in fact a national loss. Learned counsel submits that original copies of the registration documents and other supporting documents indicating his ownership over the said vehicle would be filed and xerox copies thereof at his cost can be prepared and duly attested/certified by the petitioner can be retained by the court to be used as exhibits in the case. In praying for the release thereof the petitioner is eventually not disputing the factum of seizure of the said vehicle. No issue in this regard can therefore, be raised by the petitioner. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) the Apex Court has observed as under in paragraphs 17 and 21:--

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 applications for return of such vehicles.

However, these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers u/s 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing, that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.

Regard being had to the above, this Court directs the petitioner to approach the court below with all documents of ownership/title over the said vehicle and furnish adequate security/bond as also a bank guarantee whereafter the learned court below shall release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner under a Zimmanama subject to any other reasonable conditions that may be deemed necessary to be imposed. The vehicle should be released in favour of the petitioner within four working days of furhishment/fulfillment of documents/condition(s). The application stands disposed of.