Criminal Misc.No. M-18785 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-18785 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.8.2009 Harjinder Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 3.7.2009, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release of mini bus bearing registration No. PB-32-E-8745 on superdari in FIR No. 121 dated 19.5.2009, registered under Section 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC, Police Station Banga, was declined. The vehicle in question was involved in an accident. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is one of the recorded co-owners of the vehicle in question, the other owners being Kabal Ram and Harjinder Kumar. The petitioner is presently plying the bus for which he is having valid permit. The other two co-owners of the bus are residing abroad. The petitioner was merely seeking custody of the vehicle on superdari during pendency of the trial as in police custody, the vehicle is damaging. He further submitted that even the prosecution in its reply to the application filed by the petitioner stated that it did not have any objection to the release of the vehicle to the petitioner, but still the application was rejected merely on the ground that other owners have not approached the court and there is no power of attorney available with the petitioner on their behalf. It was further stated that the petitioner will keep the vehicle in the same condition and produce the same in court as and when required and will not Criminal Misc.No. M-18785 of 2009 [2] create any third party rights. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 380 and Bharath Metha v. State by Inspector of Police Chennai, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 554 and of this Court in Kulwant Singh v. State of Haryana, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 828. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that other co-owners having not approached the court, the vehicle should not be released to one of them, as they may have objection to the same. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner is one of the co-owners of the bus, which is in police custody, the release of which has been sought for by the petitioner. It would be of no use to keep the same in police custody for a long period, as the same will be damaged if not used. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra) had opined that it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. The Magistrate should pass appropriate order by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the vehicle. This could be done even pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. It was held that in case the vehicle was not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. Firstly, the insurance company should be informed to take possession of the vehicle in case not claimed by the owner and in case even insurance company fails to take the possession, the vehicle may be sold as per directions of the court. However, before handing over possession of such vehicle, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared. In Bharath Metha's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court even directed for release of the vehicle to the financier thereof having found that instalments of the loan had not been paid and original owner having not claimed the possession thereof for years together. Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law and also the fact that admittedly the petitioner is one of the co-owners of the vehicle lying in police custody, in my opinion, it would not be in the interest of any of the parties that the vehicle is permitted to be rusted lying unused at the police station. Once the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish adequate security for release of the same on superdari and also undertake to keep the vehicle in the same position, besides undertaking not to create any third party interest. Accordingly, it is directed that the vehicle in question be released to Criminal Misc.No. M-18785 of 2009 [3] the petitioner on superdari on his furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the learned court below subject to such conditions as may be imposed and after taking appropriate photographs of the said vehicle and preparing a panchnama. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.8.2009 mk