IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1185 of 2008 VIKASH KUMAR SINGH @ VIKASH SINGH @ PAWAN SINGH Son of Shree Chandrama Singh, local Resident of Mohalla Road No.6 D Gardanibagh, Balu Bazar, P.S. Gardanibagh, Town and District Patna having permanent ancestral home at village Nasratpur P.S. Sandesh, District Bhojpur…. . . . . . . . . . .Petitioner. Versus 1.State of Bihar. 2.The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Patna. 4.The Officer In-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Patna.. …………………………………....Respondents. 2 27.03.2009 The petitioner seeks release of one Hero-Honda Splender ‘Plus’ Motor-cycle bearing Regd.No. BR-IZ-8056, Engine No.05DISF13649 Chasis No.05 DI6 F 13900 which has been seized in connection with Kotwali P.S.Case No. 550 of 2006 registered under Section 392 I.P.C. regarding an occurrence when two criminals borne on the motor-cycle snatched informant’s bag and started fleeing away on the motor-cycle with the bag, but, due to arrival of Police, escaped away with the bag through a nearby lane leaving the motor-cycle. This motor-cycle was used in commission of the crimes was seized. The petitioner who claims to be the owner of the motor- cycle approached the learned magistrate in seisin of trial for release but by order dated 17th May 2008 the prayer for release was refused on the ground that the accused used to commit crime with the said motor-cycle and that he had bad criminal history as was disclosed in the Police report submitted before the court. The learned Magistrate also considered that the vehicle had been used in commission of crime of robbery. It was also considered that in order to save skin from the - 2 - occurrencee, petitioner lodged an F.I.R. next day relating to theft of motor-cycle, but the Police found the FIR false and submitted a report under Sections 182 and 211 I.P.C. for prosecution of the petitioner for lodging false FIR. The learned magistrate also considered that the motor-cycle was used in commission of crime and that it was an exhibit of the case, hence, the prayer for release was refused. After refusal of the prayer for release of the vehicle, petitioner approached before the Sessions Court but vide order dated 6th August 2008 as passed under Cr.Revn.no. 359 of 2008 the order of the learned Magistrate was upheld on the ground that the motor-cycle was used in the commission of crime and that the petitioner had also filed a false FIR reporting about the theft of vehicle but the FIR was found false and report for prosecution of the petitioner was also filed by the police. Learned Sessions Judge also considered that in the report received from the D.T.O Office it showed that the vehicle was registered in the name of Vikash Kumar Singh i.e. petitioner but father’s name shown there was Chandrika Singh and not Chadrama Singh, as is the actual name of petitioner’s father. The sessions court also considered that petitioner’s address given in the D.T.O. Office was in village Nashrapur P.S.Sandesh Distrrict Bhojpur but in the Vakalatnama filed before the court the petitioner had mentioned his address as Road No.6D, Gardanibagh, Patna. Learned counsel for the petitioner clarified that the petitioner had mentioned the address of his native village before the D.T.O. and he has also another residence at Road No.6D, - 3 - Gardanibagh, Patna, hence, this address was mentioned in the Vakalatnama before the sessions Judge. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and in the charge-sheet petitioner’s both address is mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the motor-cycle. It is also submitted that the motor- cycle is lying at the Police Station since the date of its seizure and its condition is deteriorating day by day, hence it should be returned to the petitioner. In support of his condition, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the cased of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in 2003(4) PLJR (SC) 244 where at Para-17 in connection with some vehicles which were lying at the Police Station for long and were becoming junked day by day, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the view that it was of no use to keep the seized vehicle at the Police Station for long period and that it was for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bonds or guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. Thus the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed for disposal of vehicle which were lying for long and becoming junked at the Police Station. It was not a case of seizure of any particular vehicle in a particular case in connection with involvement of the same in the commission of crime. It was a general direction for disposal of the property which was lying for long and becoming junked at the Police Station. - 4 - Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is ready to furnish security for release of the vehicle and hence it should be released to him. The respondent has filed counter affidavit and the prayer for release has been opposed. It was submitted by Mr.Yogendra Singh, J.C. to S.C.VI that the vehicle was used in commission of a serious crime like robbery. It was also submitted that the petitioner was involved in commission of the crime and in which charge-sheet was submitted against him. It was also submitted that the petitioner is also involved in other cases. Further submission is that the vehicle is an exhibit of the case due to its use and involvement in the commission of the crime. Thus, the vehicle has been refused to be released at this stage on the ground that it has been used in the commission of crime and that it is an exhibit of the case. After conclusion of the case, the learned Magistrate may even consider for the forfeiture of the vehicle. In such view of the matters, I feel that the learned court below has rightly refused the release of the vehicle. Theretofore, finding no merit in this application, it is dismissed. Jay/ (C.M.Prasad,J)