Prem Giri vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 12.9.2013 passed by the learned XIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST No. 599/2013 whereby the application of the applicant for grant of vehicle on custody was dismissed.

Facts of the case in short is that a robbery took place and it is alleged that one accused Ram Giri has stated in his statement u/s 27 of the Evidence Act that he purchased the vehicle MP-04-BA-2199 by the amount received in the share of robbed property and therefore, vehicle was seized.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the applicant is not an accused in the case. He is the registered owner of the vehicle. It is no where alleged that the vehicle was used in the crime. If the accused Ram Giri is convicted and sentenced in the case then certainly fine or compensation may be imposed upon him which can be recovered. By evidence u/s 27 of the Evidence Act it cannot be said that the vehicle which is found registered in the name of the applicant Prem Giri was not purchased by the applicant at present. The trial Court can recover the compensation from the accused Ram Giri and no lien can be directed against the present vehicle for recovery of the compensation. The motor vehicle if kept at the Police Station unattended, then it may deteriorate and therefore, it cannot be kept in such a manner without any justified reason. There is no possibility of confiscation of the vehicle in the trial. Under such circumstances, it is a good case in which vehicle may be given to the applicant in his temporary custody.

The order dated 12.9.2013 passed by the learned ASJ appears to be perverse and therefore, it cannot be maintained.

The revision filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. The order dated 12.9.2013 passed by the learned XIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal is hereby set aside. It is directed that if the applicant furnishes supurdiginama bond in sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- along with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court that as and when demanded, the applicant shall produce the vehicle No. MP-04-BA-2199 before the Court on his own expenditure, he shall not transfer the vehicle till the pendency of the case, he shall not create any burden on the vehicle in that period then the aforesaid vehicle be given to the applicant in temporary custody till the disposal of the trial.

Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information. C.C. as per rules.