n IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.1 CR.M.P. N0. ^2- OF 2011 PETITIDNER ^^s-- ?^-w ^tSS ....^•s^^. -"SSgi;;" ^.•-••""'--3^r.' '; ;Ramshanker Tiwari, Aged about 25 years, S/o Shri Gauri Shanker Tiwari, R/o Village Panchayat Sarbahra, Tahsil and Police Station Pendraroad, District ^;fiilaspur'(C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the; Statipn Hoyse LOfficer, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) PETITION-UNDER SECTION 48?'OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.1973 RESPONDENT 3Ii^I ^il (({•li'* wn ss6^ sh*ii* TST "sii^fiMi, ^•fll'M'i^, fsfyirey ..&C»Aik.:..vv0.:. *11HMI (hNJch •-•••m—"-Y---"-" ••--•••<-^200 sn^Itraq? (•^qi^sq) '^rlIW flfOT'CT^t s>Rfe'!ft:tiv^'" fs^S\hw< "^; aifgii aii^r SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohah Shrivastava. J. 13-12-2011 Shri Prakash Mishra, couns^ for the petitioner. Meara. ~- . .. . ';'1 This petition has been fiied (?y the petitioner aggrieved by order passed in revision whereby rejection of petiti^ner's application for release of vehicie by the Magistrate has been affirmed. Learned counsei for the gietitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner ofthe vehicie. Ac^ording to the case of the petitioner, the vehicle was taken by the accused persons those, who were traveling in the ve and he is aiteged to have committed murder of ticie. Learned counsei further submits that the petitioner is not an accused in th^ case and necessary investigation involving vehicle and coilection of incriminatirjg materiai have been completed as the vehicie J!~- has been seized on 02/10/201 1. Tjierefore, now, there is no purpose to keep the vehicle in custody. He submits th^t the petitioner is prepared to abide by such conditions as may be imposed on hjm in the event of reiease of his vehicie. i On theother hand, iearned ^tate counsei submits thatthe order passed by the Courts beiow is just and proj>er as the vehicie has been seized only on j 02/10/2011 and it being a caseof! founfl, the vehicle may be required rejection of the application at this received, cannot be said to be iliegs heinous crime where biood stains were aiso for coilecting evidence. He further submits that stage, when the FSL report has not been so as to call for inierference against the order of Courts beiow. 1 find that the 4'Piication of the petitioner has been rejected taking into consideration that the ca^e invoives ailegation of commission or offence of murder and certain blood stains |were also found in the vehicte. it appears that the poiice is iikely to coiiect sorpe mors incriminating materiai in course of •£^'r' 'tl ^"CT"' ,-i"' -£3E£HC—78 311^1 ^l i<-f "^n sn^T ^><fl^ \ ^' Deepti ^ *<l*1dl ttlNiqi -a-sr "4]<<i<'i<i, yTily'i^, fsidiyy ("'rv^h- \^jo • Qh^/1{ SII^TTRT (liclij<<<lT) ^iiwa^iai^n ^- investigation in which, vehicie mal interfere with the Orders passed bj given libeny to revive his appiicatit^i for grant of interim custody of the vehicie aner filing of charge sheet by the poigce. in case, such appiicatiort is fiied by the petitioner for .reie.ase of the vehicld * ». WitH <he aforesaid observati ••^^..".^.., -^:^? • ^PlfrpftT *<Wdf tj ^13} ifat^R ^sifin 3ii^i ^ be required. Therefore, i am not inciined to \i the Courts beiow. However, the petitioner is , the same shail be decided by the Court beiow -'tai<ing«JBto<tConsiaeration the chanjed circumstances inciuding fiiing of the charge •sffeS.''"^ >ns, the petition is finaiiy disposed off. ,-^Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge