IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFU ^-1 ° ^—72010 Singh CR.M.P. N0. 72010 APPLICANT Vinod Kumar Verma S/o Late Ramsahay ^y...--""o^?* Verma Aged 42 years, Near Water Tank, Near ^**** -.C^VCt* V\^i±i.lCL Il.Q^^l. ~T^t Jf^C-U.O, ±1^C4-I. VV CLl.\^i ±CL±iI^y ••^'•^"^^•^ ..."••'' ^.-^p ^,.*-* Danghania School, Shikshak Colony, -•\''^>'..-' ^.^••^^ "^i"^ vy>^ NON-APPLICANT ^" ,^ Dangania Colony Raipur CG '^ VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through SHO Crime Squad, Ganj Police Station, Raipur (C.G.). APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482JOF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. 1973 ;^!^gc3g'a^^-.^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Shri Manindra Mohan ShrSvastava. J, PET'iTIQNER l£:££Brf^&Sr^Sa.ET' Cr.M.P, N0.4Q2>2010 Vinod Kumar Verrna Versus State of Chhattisgarh pETmON uNDER 3ECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRir.iiNAL PROGEDURE. 1373 Present: - Shri Saiesm Kazi, counse! for ths petifioner. Shri Awind Shukla, Panel Lawy'er Tor the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14th ofSeptember, 2010) This petition under Section 482 is directed against the order dated 7/1/09 passed by First Additionai Session Judge, Raipur in Criminai Revision No.226/08 by which the order dated 17/10/08 of ttie Magistrate rejecting petttioners appiication un^Qi Section 451 ofCr. P.C. has been confirmed. 2. Learned counsei for the petitioner submite that in connection with aileged cornmission of offence under Crime No.130/08, computer, hard disk, rnonitor, iaser printer and other accessories were seized frorn the petitioner. The petitioner is the owner of the computer and accessories which are iying seized since last airnost one year. Learned counsei further submits that the investigatiorr h-as been cornpieted^ chaiian has aiso been fiied and the contente of the computer, saved in the Hard Disk have aii been copied by the investigattng agency and now the petitioner has also fiied the affidavit of the suppiier from whom computer was purehased by the petitioner. Learned-counsei for Uie petitioner. retying upon the judQment of this Court in the case of Gopai Vjshvas v. State of C.G. 2005 (1) C.Q.L.J. 112, submits that the Courte beiow were not ^^-.^^••^, Lc. ^ ^ •< -^ jusiified rejecting petitioner's appiication for reiease uf the property and the sarne has been rejected rnainiy on ine ground that eariier aiso such application was rejected finuing the biil to be suspicious, though now the appiicant has placed on record the affidavit of the supplier who sold the computer to the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, submission of ieamed counsei for the State is that a perusai of the order passed by the iearned Additionai Sessions Judge shows that eariier atso petitioner's appiication for reiease of property was rejected by ttie triai Court which was confirmed by tiie Sessions Judge vide ite order dated 23/5/2008 passed in Criminai Revision No.87/08, mainly on the ground that the biil submitted by the petitioner was found to be suspicious. He subrnits that the second application was therefore rightiy rejected by the Courts beiow. 4. i have considered the submissions of learned counsei for ifte parries. 5. A perusai of order passed by the Magistrate dated 17/10/08 as aiso the order dated 7/1/09 passed by the Firet Additionai Sessions Judge, Raipur rejecting "the petitioner's appiication under Section 451 Cr.P.C shows that the petitioner moved the appiication for reiease of property claiming the ownership of ilie same. The case ofthe proseeution is fnat it was seized from the possession of the appiicant. Submission was rnade before the Courts beiow that the computer is the rnain source of iiveiihood of.the petitioner and the invesUgation has been cornpiete^ and charge sheet has aiso been fiied, therefore the seized property may be now reteased in favour of the appiicants. •^ 6. Prayer for reiease of the property is however rejected by the iearned triai Court. The reason assigned by the iearned trial Court rejecting the appiieation is HH»!ieK y - •"..&y^ ;* ;. 7 !. ., ! a. ... »!l.t i.^y,»^,.,,w ;'..'7°ui^^s^-^ ^ that eariier also such appiication was rejected by the iearned trial Court finding the biii to be suspicious which was conflrmed vide order dated 23/5/2008 in Criminal Revision No.87/08. Learned Courts beiow have ignored to take into consideration that on subsequent event, after rejectton ofthe eariier appiication, petitioner came out with a new appiication along with affldavit of the suppiier that the computer was soid to the petitioner. The petitioner had aiready submitted the biii. The case of the prosecution is that it was seized from the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the computer and accessories are necessary to run his business. Gtherwise aiso, chaiian has been fiied after compietion of investigation and taidng into consjderation the nature of property, keeping the sarne under seized condiBon, particuiariy taking into consideration that the same is iying seized for almost one year and taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances of the case, the impugned orders rejecting the petitioners appiicauon forj-eiease of the property cannot be sustained in the eye of iaw. The impugned order dated 7/1/09 passed by the iearned Court below is set aside. 7. The appiication under Section 451 of the Crirninal Procedure Code, 1973 for reiease of the seized property namely computer and accessories is aitowed. The same shaii be released in favour of the petitioner and shaii remain in his interim custody and it shaii be produced as and when directed by the concerned triai Court. The applicant shail keep the property in safe conditions and shali not cany any alteration in any rnanner or form. The trial Court shail reiease the property on petitioner furnishing personaS bond to its satisfaction. ^.' 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge