Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Anand Pathak, J

The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner taking exception to the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the trial court whereby application under Section 451, 457 of the Cr.P.C. preferred at the instance of the petitioner has been rejected.

2 . It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that Truck of ownership of petitioner vide registration No.32 G 95429307 was seized by the police in Crime No.244/2023. Petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle. He had requisite ETP (Electronic Transit Pass) vide No.T 8985541454 dated 04.10.2023. At the time of interception, he was having requisite ETP. Still it has been confiscated. Petitioner undertakes that if any penalty is contemplated and notice is received in this regard then he shall abide by the order of the authority concerned and would deposit the requisite penalty amount. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the order of this Court in the case of Bhikhari Khan vs. State of M.P. reported in 2022 (1) MPWN 48.

3 . Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the petition on the ground that Courts below have considered the material aspects in the controversy.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents the appended thereto.

After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and after going through the record appended to the present petition, this Court finds that only reason for the trial Court to reject the application for releasing the vehicle in interim custody was that till date the vehicle of the petitioner which was found transporting illegal minor minerals was not penalized and there was every chance of environmental hazard being caused by the petitioner, and there is every possibility of repetition of the offence, therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, the application for interim custody was rejected.

In the light of above judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and after taking into consideration the submissions made by petitioners' counsel, it is directed that if the petitioner furnishes a bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac only) to the satisfaction of trial Court/ Magistrate concerned, then the possession of vehicle in question be given to the petitioner on interim custody during pendency of the trial after verification of the requisite documents pertaining to the ownership of the vehicle in question, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner will not make any change in the appearance of vehicle in question;

(ii) He shall not create any third party rights over the vehicle in question;

(iii) He shall produce the vehicle before the trial Court/ Magistrate, as and when demanded, on his own cost;

(iv) It is made clear that after release of vehicle the petitioner shall not commit same nature of offence by using the said vehicle.

(v) This order shall remain in force till final disposal of the case pending before trial Court/ Magistrate and at the time of final disposal of the case, the trial Court/Magistrate will be at liberty to pass appropriate order with regard to vehicle in question in accordance with law without getting influenced by this order.

With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.