!<!i'iSF;e:s*,s.»a jlars»s-Bi3jpRga ^^T) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR. M. P. PETITIONER .. ·^^^1": ^%-': ^ <b%?? .\^- „ i® (?.' w: RESPONDENT \%s> /2009 ;^§'t^-^ti^r.^E^^^^. Kishan Patel, S/o. Tilak Ram Patel, Aged about 35 years, R/o. Khariyar Road, District Nuapada (Orissa) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: Van Parikshetra Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (CG) .£' PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 Q£THE£ODEQF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE -Hv HIOH COURT OF CHHATHSOARH AT BILASPUR 88 : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITIKKBR DIWAKER CR.M.P. HO. 18 APPELLAMT RESPONDENT vcrsus Kishan Patel State ofChhattisgarh Shri Vaibhav Govcrdhan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. O.A. for the State. PBTITION imDBR SECTIOS 4SSOF'rHKfXHWOy CRIMmALPROCBDORB ORDER (13-oi-aoio) With the consent of the pardes, the matter is heard finally. 2. The preseat petitton is directed agamst fhe impugned order dated 17.3.2009 p^sed by the Pirst Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasaniund in Cr. Rev. No. 9/2009 arising out of the oidcr dated 27.1.2009 passed in Remand Case No. 682/20)9 by Judicial M^istrate First Class, Mahasamund whereby fhe learaed M^Eistrate vide its ordcr rejectcd the appUcation as fited by the petitfoner imder Section 451 Cr.P.C. for graat of Supiinlnanaa of his aiotor cycte. Thus order has been affirmed by the revisioaal CourL 3. Contention offhe counsel for the petitioner is fhat fhe petitioner is fhe undisputed owner of fhe said vehicle nainely Bajaj Discover 135 bearing Chasis No. MD2DSJJNZZRCC5I399 and the vehicle ia questinn was scized by fhe poUce in fhe aionfh of Januaxy 2009 in ..-I^.A tat,, tV'~ ^^"'^-St ^:: :.1" .'^J •^^/ connection with fhe Forest Act aad also ia connectioa wifh Wikl Life Piotection Act He subnuts that the vehicle in question is lying in thc poUce station aud if the saaie is not given to the petitioner, its condition would be deterforated, rendered uselcss and the possibiUly of theft of the parts of vehicle cannot be ruled out. He further subuaits fhat the petitioner is wittmg to abide by aB the conditions as inay be imposed by fhis Coiut whilc releasiag the vebicle on supurdnaiua. He has flufh.er placed reliance on fhe judgment offhe Apex Court ia 2008 fDy A.C.S.T. 36, State ofVLP. S»Others Vs. MtaUiufcar Kao. 4. On the ofher hand counsel for fhe State opposes the petition and submlts fhat as under Sections 9,39,50 & 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act and Scction 26 afthe Forest Act, vehicle of fhe petitipner can bc confiscated, tbe Coiuts below are fiilly justified ia regecting fhe appUcation of ffae petitioner. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused tfae documejits filed by fhe petittoner. It is not disputed by the State couuscl fhat the petittoner is the owner of the vehicle ia question fiufher it is also not disputed tfaat fhe confiscation of fhe vehicle has not bccn done till date aad fhe pioceedu^s are pendiag. The vehicle of fhe petitioner is tyiag in the police station in open and uncared condition aad ftierefore m the opmion offhe this Court, fhe impugned oider passed by the Courts below are set aside. It is directed fhat fhe niotor cycte bearing Chasis No. MD2DSJJNZZRCC51399 shafl be dclivered to the petitioner in iaterua custody on his fumiahing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and iindertaldng bond to fhe satisfaction ofthe trial Court that he shaU produce thc said vehicte as aad when required by thc Court. He shall not transfer or otherwise aUenate his possesston or titlc to ••^&w,. .<» anybody during pcndcncy of fhe case. He shaB not change the colour or design of the said vehicle. A recent phtograph ofthe said motor cycle shatl be kept in record. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker teii?^;sSiSi8S?;fe