c^§?^. £>-^\"\ .,,-» ^•-;^^n^'\^.v'.'--'->-" &>"" l^'n '^^^--^^^, L.--'"' ?^w^^^^ \.y <~^ %Q3 <sm@!e Bench Dhanfeshwar Jaiswal S/o Jaiswal, aged about-24 village-IChansara, P.S. Chauki- Khansara), Tahsil Distt. Durg (C.G.). 3hri R.K. R/o Bemetra( Bemetra, State of Chhattisgarh throys Sarkanda Distt. SII^I ^I 1<;-< ^FT%W aqt <HI^T ffi*fl<ss r IX ~s^ '^nm^, ^M'f'a, [^v\w<^i *11HiC'IT a»*11<!h <3lrlA-l^fo. «AS """"r""""" •6.5/LL •f^ 200 sn^?!'^^? (ljc<f^«i<iti) BWlflT ^lfCT Sf^V SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohaln Shrivastava. J. 30-11^011 Shri Vipin Singh, counsel for Shri Ashish Gupta, Panel La With the consent ofthe parti^s, the matter is heard finaliy. This petltion is directed agai|ist order dated 28/06/2011 by which petMoner's application for grant of interim cust((dy of the motor cycle has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petijioner submite that the motor cycle is alieged to have been used in transportation o' accused in the case and the vehitjle was taken by one Atul Sharma for personal requirement and the petitioner had applicant is the registered owner already been filed and till date, witnesses have aiso been examin4 vehicle in ssized condition and iftti of the case. On the other hand, learned p^tjtioner was rejected as back as| in the meantime, five prosecution v|r application for interim custody ofth|i it has been stated that th^ then^it is in the custody. The petif tt)i<ilfi<<ll TlTIT^iy ^f 'feT^ <P>(^R ^STfilTSII^I the petitioner. wyerfortheState^ Ganja. He submits that the petiUoner is not an bonafide given his vehlcie. He submits that the of ihe vehicle and as the charge sheet has five prosecution witnesses including seizure d, no purpose would be served in ailowing the b vehicie is reteased, it would not affect the triai State counsel submits thatthe application ofthe on 28/06/11 on the ground that the evidence of the prosecution has not started. T]he petitioner did not approach this Court and if, tnesses including seizure witnesses have been examined, the petitioner ought to tijave first approached the concerned Court again for retease of the vehicle in chanded circumstances. He ftirther submits that the vehicle has been found engagejd in trafficking of nareotics. Therefore, the e vehicle has been rightiy rejecied. vehicle was seized on 10/01/2011 and since oner is not an accused in the case. Moreover, T XI-HC—78 311^1 ^lfrlN? Wf <»11^T^l^iqi Deepii ^Sf •<1]qK')A|, ®-fl|y<|S,fa<-||y^< .i^o . go3//) *«MMIth*ll<t> ( 3n^r'<raqi' ('^3^'?) •^200 6«iitff^itei an^i the documents show that the petitij apptication was rejected by the witnesses have not been examin^d. counsel forthe petiUoner that as examiried inctuding the seizure Tnerefore, instead of send) changed circugistances, 1 deem it] interim custodyofthe petitioner. the vehicle on such terms and learned trial Court. The petition is finally dispos^d off. i{>ner is the registered owner of the vehicie. His C|aurt below on Uie ground that the prosecution it is however, stated at the bar by leamed (nany as five pfosecution wrtnesses have been witdiesses. |ng the matter back for reconsideration, in the lexpedient to direct release of the vehicle in the Ihe petitioner shall be granted interim custody of c4)nditions as may be considered proper by the ^' ^T^CT^t lTW?ft' ^ fe^ Tf^R^R ^ajfiiisii^r Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge