AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Heard, by consent rule is made returnable forthwith.
The petitioner is shown as accused in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 165/2002 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli. He is registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. MH-33/A-403. The vehicle is a new Mahindra Bolero approximate value Rs. 4.50 lakhs, which has been seized in Crime No. 140/2002 by the respondent. The main offence is under sections 382, 325, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Penal Code read with Sections 66(i)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act.
The petitioner had filed an application for release of the vehicle before the trial Court and the said application was rejected on the footing that the applicant was a habitual offender and the vehicle in question had been used by him in the previous offence.
I have perused the submission made by the respondent. There is nothing to indicate that the same vehicle was used by the offender for commission of any previous offence. The learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (9) SCALE 153. In the said case the Apex Court held that, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle in the police station for a long period and it is for the Magistrate to pass an appropriate order immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the vehicle, if required at any point of time. In fact, as per the Apex Court, this can also be done pending hearing of application for return of such vehicle.
In the overall circumstances of this case and considering the views taken by the Apex Court, I feel that this is a fit case where petition can be allowed subject to certain conditions.
Rule is, therefore made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (i) and respondent is directed to release the vehicle ''Mahindra Bolero'' bearing registration No. MH-33/A-403 seized in crime No. 140/2003, upon the petitioner''s furnishing a Bond in the sum of Rs. 4.50 Lakhs with one surety in the like amount and to file an undertaking for return of vehicle if and when directed by the Court. The undertaking and the surety be accepted by the Trial Court, if found in order.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.