1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1426/2008 RAJESH KUMAR V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. DATE OF ORDER ::: 24/11/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. J.S.Choudhary, for Petitioner (s). Mr.Ashok Upadhyay, PP, for the State. Instant petition is for release and custody of vehicle Bus No. RJ 19 P 5611 seized in FIR No. 259/02, Police Station, Abu Road for the offence under Section 279, IPC. According to arguments and phosostat copies submitted, Bus No. RJ 19 P 5611 is seized by the police on 16.10.08 in compliance of order of Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road in Criminal Case No.480/02. The petitioner's application for release rejected vide order dated 21.10.08. According to the impugned order dated 21.10.08, this vehicle was seized in FIR No.259/02, Police Station, Abu Road and (under Section 457, Cr.P.C.,) custody was given to registered owner Gyhan Chand on 7.9.02 on conditions one of which which being that vehicle shall not be transferred. And Gyan Chand shall produce the original registration certificate and insurance etc. within 15 days of release order dated 7.9.02. But, despite opportunities, he did not produce the documents so the order for seizure of the vehicle and the vehicle is seized on 16.10.08. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Gyan Chand was given custody of vehicle on 7.9.02 on Suprdginama/surety of Rs.6,50,000/- order for presenting documents was also for him - Gyan Chand did not produce the documents – Gyan Chand sold the vehicle on 29.3.07 to Mool Chand and Mool Chand sold the vehicle to Smt. Imrati Devi w/o. Rajesh Kumar who was not knowing of any condition in case etc. Argued that registration certification and insurance are in favour of Smt. Imrati Devi w/o. Rajesh Kumar, therefore, she is entitled for custody of vehicle at least for the time being. Also argued that vehicle is lying 2 unused for a month and if remaining so, shall become useless and bus originally seized for the offence of Section 279, IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that looking to above, the vehicle may be given to the petitioner on Supurdginama/surety of appropriate amount. Considered. The bus was apparently originally seized for the offence under Section 279, IPC – other factual aspects also as above and vehicle is lying unused for about 5 years. Considering all these aspects, it is just proper to release the vehicle in favour of petitioner the registered owner. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as allowed and vehicle (seized in FIR No.259/02 in Criminal Case No. 480/02) may be handed over to its (present) registered owner on Supurdginama/surety of amount and conditions to be determined by the learned Magistrate. Original documents, in terms of order dated 7.9.02 shall be made available by the petitioner for perusal and record of concerned Court. (C. M. TOTLA), J. scd