gingie Bench IN THE HoN'B‘LE HIGIico'U'Rf OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) CR.M.P. No. $1) OF 2011 Ramshanker Tiwari, PETITION ER _:._'Ag’reldfabout 251 years, S/o Shri GéUri Shanker Tiwari, R/O Village Panchayat Sarbahra, Tahsil and Police Station Pendraroad, District Biiaspur (C.G.) a V‘ER'éU‘S RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Station House Officer, Police Station Kota, District ,VBii'aspulr‘(c.-G.)J ’ PETITION UNDER SECTION 48fOF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 MM mwm ammm JA. w m 1 On the other hand, learned tate counsei submits that the order passed by the Courts below is just and pro er as the vehicle has been seized only on 02/1 0I2D11 and it being a case o heinous crime where biood stains Were aiso found, the vehicie may be required or coiiecting evidence. He further submits that rejection of the application at th stage, when the FSL report has not been received, cannot be said to be ilieg l so as to cali for interference against the order of Courts below. l find that the pplication of the petitioner has been rejected taking into consideration that the ca e involves allegation of commission of offence \" of murder and certain biood stains ere aiso found in the vehicie. it appears that “mm-rim SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Moha 1 Shrivastavar, J. 13-1 2-2a11. g Shri Prakash Mishra, counse for the petitioner. Heard. This petition has been fried .y the petitioner aggrieved by order passed in revision whereby rejection of petitioner’s application for reiease of vehicle by the Magistrate has been af'nrmed. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicie. Ac ording to the case of the petitioner, the vehicie was taken by the accused persons nd he is aiieged to have committed murder of those, who were traveling in the ve icle. Learned counsei further submits that the petitioner is not an accused in th case and necessary investigation involving vehicle and coiiection of incriminati g material have been completed as the vehicle has been seized on 02i1 0/201 1. T erefore, now, there is no purpose to keep the j vehicie in custody. He submits th t the petitioher is prepared to abide by such ‘ J in the event of release of his vehicie. E conditions as may be‘imposed on h i @ XI~HC»—78 WWWW WW M gm .1!In zoo mm (We) WWW Mwfeaw mmm c 2 _ ww WWK 31m a; ‘ m. the pohée is iliEeiy to coilect songe more mcnmlnatlng materlal In course of investigation in which, vehicie may! be required. Therefore, i am not inciined to interfere with the orders passed b the Courts beiow. However, the petitioner is given iiberty to revive his appiicatio for grant of interim custody of the vehicie after hiing of charge sheet by the poii e. in case, such appiication is flied by the petitioner for reiease of the vehicie,‘the same shaii be decided by the Court beiow ‘ taking into consideration the changed circumstances inciuding fiiing of the charge sheet With the aforesaid observatic ns, the petition is tinaiiy disposed off. Sd/— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Deapii W