IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1008 of 2009 RANJAN RAMAN KUMAR, S/O LATE TAPESHWAR SHARMA, R/O MOHALLA-SHASTRI NAGAR, GUMLA, P.S.-GUMLA IN THE DISTRICT OF GUMLA (JHARKHAND). ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA. 3. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, BAKHTIYARPUR POLICE STATION, IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 14.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This writ application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 7.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 10 of 2009, Trial No. 283 of 2009 by which the learned Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner for release of his Scorpio Jeep bearing Registration No. JH-07B- 7284 on the ground that the said vehicle was seized in the case while carrying cash and arms in conceal chamber for supplying cartridges to the extremists of the State of Bihar and Jharkhand and thus was being used in furtherance of the commission of heinous crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the chargesheet against the 2 petitioners has been submitted, who were arrested from the vehicle and the investigation is pending only in respect of involvement of one Guddu in the alleged incident. He submits that the vehicle is standing in open in the police station facing the rigors of nature and non-use of the vehicle will result into its decay after catching rust and making the vehicle not fit for plying in course of the time causing, irreparable loss to the petitioner, who is said to be the owner of the vehicle. For exercising powers by the learned Court under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (X) SCC 283 have been relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of release of vehicle. He has particularly referred to paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 which is usefully reproduced hereinbelow :- “16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over the vehicle to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the persons concerned.” 3 “17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” “18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.” Learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit and submits that since the vehicle was used for supplying arms and ammunitions to the extremists of the State of Bihar and Jharkhand and it may be needed as material exhibit in the trial it will not be 4 appropriate to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. In the case of release of vehicle the general guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are very clear. It is said in the paragraphs of judgment, which are quoted above, that it is of no use to keep the vehicle seized for a long period and the Magistrate may pass appropriate order for its release on furnishing appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for production of the vehicle in the same condition in which it was released, whenever required by the court during the trial. The Apex Court also said that if necessary, appropriate photographs of the vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared. Considering the general guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the vehicle should be released in favour of the owner under certain conditions which are as follows:- (i) The learned Magistrate/court concerned shall take appropriate/reasonable bond and guarantee as well as security for release of the vehicle in favour of its owner to its 5 satisfaction. Before releasing the vehicle, the court shall direct the police to take photographs of the vehicle from all angles and particularly in respect of the conceal chamber in the vehicle in presence of the owner of the vehicle and shall get the photographs duly certified by him. (ii) The court below shall also take an undertaking from the owner of the vehicle that the vehicle will be produced in court as and when required in the same condition the same is being released to him. (iii) The court below may impose other conditions or get panchanama or other documents executed by the owner as it may deem fit and proper for release of the same. (iv) The court below shall also satisfy itself with regard to the true ownership of the vehicle and release the same only upon being satisfied with regard to its ownership. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed with the above observations and directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)