Rabindra Nath Mallick vs State of Orissa

A.K. Parichha, J.—The Petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 7.7.2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack rejecting his application u/s 457, Code of Criminal Procedure for release of his car (Toyata Qualis) bearing registration No. OR-07-K-0001. The said vehicle was seized by the police in Tangi P.S. Case No. 68 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 518 of 2004 in connection with an offence under Sections 341, 307/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The Petitioner, who claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle filed an application u/s 457, Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack for release of the vehicle in his favour. The learned J.M.F.C., (R) Cuttack by order dated 7.7.2004 rejected the said prayer on the ground that the offences alleged are exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the investigation is in progress, the accusation against the accused is well made out and Section 32 of the Arms Act provides for confiscation of the vehicle if the case ends in conviction. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has preferred the present revision.

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the vehicle is now lying in open air in the complex of the police station and if it is allowed to remain as such for long time, its value and utility will definitely go down causing immense loss. He further submits that the Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and is in no way connected with the offence alleged and so, there is no legal impediment for interim release of the vehicle in his favour. To support his contention, he cited the decision of this Court in Antaryami Swain v. State of Orissa (2004) 28 OCR 763 wherein this Court directed for release of the vehicle with suitable terms and conditions.

Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the brother of the Petitioner utilized the vehicle in question for committing grave offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 323/34, IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. At this stage, the involvement of the Petitioner in the aforesaid incident cannot be ruled out. He expresses his apprehension that the vehicle may be re-utilised for commission of further crime if it is released.

The principle relating to interim release of the vehicle was discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Sundarbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujrat 2003 (24) OCR 444 wherein their Lordships have observed thus:

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.

x x x x

This Court also adopted the same view in the case of Antaryami Swain (supra) and directed for release of the vehicle in favour of the registered owner subject to certain conditions, if such owner is not implicated in the criminal case.

Here a grave allegation has been made against the brother of the Petitioner and the involvement of the vehicle in question has also been indicated. But the Petitioner, who is the registered owner of the vehicle has not yet been made an accused and no allegation has been made against him showing his connection with the alleged offence. The vehicle seized is a costly one and is now lying exposed to sun and shower. If it is allowed to remain like that for a long time, its condition will certainly deteriorate, which will be beneficial to none. The lower Court records show that the investigation has already been completed. So, for proper preservation of the vehicle, it should be released in favour of the registered owner of the vehicle by imposing certain conditions.

In view of the foregoing discussions, I direct release of the vehicle (Toyata Qualis) bearing registration No. OR-07-K-0001 in favour of the registered owner of the vehicle on the condition that he shall furnish property security of Rs. 6 lakhs (six lakhs) and cash security of one lakh. He shall also give an undertaking to the effect that he shall not dispose of the vehicle, shall not allow the vehicle to be involved in commission of any offence and shall produce the same before the trial Court as and when directed.

The Criminal Revision is allowed accordingly.