IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 259 of 2008 Rahul Kumar ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand ……… Respondents …………. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for the State. …………….. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Government Advocate for the State. Mr. G.S.Sandhu, the learned Government Advocate submits that he does not want to file reply. He also submits that this case can be disposed of today finally at the admission stage. 2. According to the learned counsel for the parties, proceedings for confiscation of the Car in question are already pending with the District Magistrate, Haridwar. 3. In my considered opinion, no useful purpose will be served in denying to the petitioner the custody of the Car, but at the same time, the interest of the State has also to be protected, because if ultimately in confiscation proceedings, an order adverse to the petitioner is passed, at least the price of the Car can be appropriated by the State Government because in the ultimate analysis also consequent upon the confiscation order, if ever passed, the Car has to be sold through public auction. 4. The registration certificate, copy enclosed with the petition, shows that it is 1994 model Maruti – 800 Vehicle. 5. This petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondent to release the Car in favour of the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with the District Magistrate, Haridwar. If ultimately confiscation order is passed, the amount so deposited shall stand forfeited to the State Government. (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 25.04.2008 A