D^ THE HONBLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.NQ, __^_ /2010 PETITIONER a5^...'-s". \N\>''' A.p Ramesh Kumar Tiwari, aged about 42 years, S/o Pognarayan Tiwari (Yognarayan Tiwari), R/o Pendra Road, Tahsil and Police Station Pendra Road, ^.:^f ':: '^^^ Distt- Bilaspur (C.GJ . ^~: .-'' ^ RESPONDENT VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh, through the police station Kota, Distt. Bilaspur. CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETmON UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROEDURE CODE. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. Criminal Misc. Petition N0.857/2010 Petitioner Respondent Petitioner Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Versus State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Misc. Petition N0.858/2010 Santosh Kumar Mishra Versus Respondent State of Chhattisgarh (Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proeedure) Present: - Shri Ravindra Agrawal, counsel for the Petitioner. Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15 of Noveinber, 2010) Heard. This common order shall govern disposal of Cr.M.P.No.857of2010 and Cr.M.P.No.858 of 2010. Both the petitions were fited under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the respective petitioner aggrieved by order dated 14-10-2310 passed by the learned 9' Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Bilaspur, by which, order dated 10-09-2010 rejecting petitioners' application for interim custody of the vehicle has been confirmed. Leamed counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner in each of the petitions is the registered owner of the vehicle and In support of this, the petitioner has placed documents relating to the registration of the vehicle and also documents relating to purchase of the vehicle by taking loan from a Finance Company. Learned counsel for the petitloner submits that even though, no other person claimed the custody of the vehicte, the f s w eii iSss& sisssissstwius-if-wK-x T^^S'--..-: -2- leamed Court below has rejected the petitioners' application for interim custody only on the ground that there is discrepancy in the chassis number of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not a case where the application for interimcustody of the vehicle has been rejected on any other consideration much less consideration relating to gravity of offence. He further argued that no one has claimed the vehicle. Leamed counsel submits that on the basis of the mat6rial placed by him before the Court below, he was entitled to interim custody of the vehicle and the Court below could have imposed appropriate conditions to ensure the safe custody and production of the vehicle as and when required during the course of trial. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that from the order impugned, it is revealed that the application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there is discrepancy in the chassis number of the vehicle. Learned State counsel further submitted that as the matter is stilt under investigation, it would not be proper to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is required to first satisfy the Court below with regard to very identity of the vehicle before claiming interim custody of the vehicle. From a perusal of the order passed by the triat Court as well as by the lower appellate Court, it is reflected that the in order to seek interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner has placed the registration certificate as also the documents relating to obtaining finance from the Finance Company. The main reason for rejection of petitioners' application appears to be certain discrepancies in the chassis number. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid ground itself could not be made a basis to reject the application, particularly when none else claimed the vehicle and there is no altegation of the offences being so grave as to warrant rejection of the application because under the provisions of Section 52(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, change of the chassis number is permissible and in fact, the petitioner had left the SM --T, Tumane vehicle for extensive repairing and was about to apply for change of chassis number also. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submission that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle and there is no one etse, who has claimed the vehicle, rejection of petitioners' application for interim custody of the vehicle appears to be unjustified. Order passed by the learned Court below is hereby set aside and the application for interim custody of the vehicle is allowed. Vehicle concerned shall be given In interim custody to each of the petitioners on the following conditjons: 1. Each of the petitioner shall furnish security of immovable property for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs. 2. The petitioner shall not materially alter the condition of the vehicle. The vehicle shall be kept in the safe custody. 3. The petitioner shall produce the vehicte as and when directed by the Investigating Agency or by the Court. It is made clear that upon violation of aforesaid conditions, the order of interim custody shall be liabte to be cancelled. In view of foregoing, both the aforestated criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge !