M IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr; M. p. No. g425 [2009 $lng'e Bench AFI5LICANT ‘ g% \"&"‘\ X Aged about 19 years, occupatlon a g. , *gy) #’ Business, R/o Madrasha Road, Uchri, igg‘g}, {7 {NAM Thalna and District Gadwa, (Jharkhand). /Pappu Khan S/ o Iqraar Khan VERSUS yoN-APPLICANT : xThe State of Chhattisgarh, " ‘ w Through: District Magistrate Ambikapur District Sarguja, C.G. w“ APPLICATION m UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR GIVING INTERIM CUSTODY OF THE VEHICLE. m HIGH C$KER’£‘ GF CHHAT?X$GARH AT EELASPUR SB : HGN’BLE MR. J'UgTKiE PRETIHKER EMWAKER .M.FMQ. 54%} 2&09 FETITEGMER an3 CR. 9‘u Khan VEISES RESPONDENT State of Caisgarh hhtt Shri R.K.Jain, counse1 for e plica. Shri N€€raj Mehta, P.L. fo the State. APPLICATION UNDER SECT1$H 482 OF EHE CLRC. ’‘ DR‘DER (05.05.616; t t 8 finally. With the consen of the palTies, the matter is heard The present petition flied under Secion 42 C1‘.P.C. is directed against the impugeemi order der} 24.09.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Ramanujganj, Dis‘'t Surguja in CrReV. NO. 97j09 whereby learned revisnal Couxt ha aii‘umed the ord of he Magistrate dated 19,8.09 rejecng the application as filed by The ph‘cant uer Section 457 of fhe Cr.P.C. for releasing is vehicle on Supurdgima. 2. Contention of the couel for the applicant that he is the owner of the vehicle in question a o Rajkira Kesari @ Sonu had taken his vehicle Whic was ultimatey seized by the prosecion. He submits that th vehicle in question is lying in the open space, he ha all the documents shwing e fact that he s the undispued owner of the vehicle a therefore the vehicle be released n his favour. He has placed his strong rehance on the judgment of the AoeX Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal hasm' V3.7 State of Gigrat reported in AIR 2003 Si? 633 and submits that the Court should adopt a very liberai View while releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama. r th apnt 2 et mc me ie s er t ti ap nd h na ns is nd ne n h l ut e s o th i t nd i <g% 3. On the other hand opposx’ng the patiu‘on it has been argued by the State ccunsel that the vehicie in questisn ifs involved in the naxalite activity and therefore the same may no: be released 4. i have heard counsel for fhe parties and perused. aha From the repiv of the State coumse1 and the order of revisional Court; it is apparent that the vehicle in questien was used by the accused persons for committmg the Gifenee under Sections 307,124-Af34 IPC read with Section ‘25 8a 27’ of the Arms Act and Secfion 8 of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jansuraksha Adhim'yam 2005. It is n01 disputed by the parties that the vehicle in question was being used in the naxaiite activities and the ailegation is that certain weapons were suppEe§ through the vehicie. it is also not disputed that at the time of seizure of vehicle the same was not registered iu the name of the petitionez} the vehicle was seized on 155.2009 Whereas the record. same got registered in the name of the petitioner 011 21.5.20i39. 5. Considan‘ng the meaty of the fact m pamcuiar that me vehicle in question was used in supplying Weapons to the naxalites, I am not Vincliziec'i to interfere in the petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C‘ specially when both the Courts below have considered all the aspects of the case and has given eoncurrent finding. The petition has no substaiioe and; the same is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. st " aia‘kerwa‘f‘ 7. 7‘ . r .. “