-S.f^S3""' r ^f i'<^Ka^^i?;i '^•^^•'''^. H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH. BSLASPUR Cr.M.P.No.23of2QQ7 Versus State of Chhattisgsrh, Through : The Station House Officer, Poiice Station Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C-.G.) Apoearance: Ms. Pushpa CSwivedi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.K. Beriwa!, Dy. Advocate Generai, for the Sti SUNiL KUMAR StNHA. J. {02.05. This petltion is filed against the order dated 11.12.2006 passed in crimina! revision No. 27)'2006 bythe Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham (CG), whereby, the learned Sessions Judge, after perusa! of the case dlary, has dismissed the appljcation of the petitioner for reteasing his vehicla on Suprudnama. The brieffacts are that the vehicle (Car) bearing registra.tion No. CG 11 BA 9031 was seized by the Police during the course of investigation of Crime No. 162/2006, registered at Po!ice Station Pandariya for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 I.P.C. The petitioner being the owner has c!aimed the aforesaid vehicle on Suprudnama whlch was refused by the revisional Court by passing the impugned order dated 11.12.2006. The revisiona! Court has said that since the vehicle in question was used by the accused persons namely- Narendra Bharti, Mansharam Surtfawanshl, Ramu @ Ramkumar and Shakhiram Bharti for going to the house ofthe complainant, therefore, it is vaiuable evidence and it shall not be released onSuprudnama. Learned counse! for the petitioner argues that the a.foresaid vjew as taken by the Sessions Judge.appears to be erroneous and should be set aside by this Court. PETrrJONER- Rajesh Kumar Sshu, aged about 30 years, Son of Shri Mukhiram Sahu, Resident of Viliage Dongakohrouci, Poiice Statio" Pamgarh, Districi Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 Cr.M.P. No. 23 of 2007 ! have heard tearned counse! for the parties a.nd have ateo perused the records of the criminal misc. petition. Section 451 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to pass appropria.tt orders with regard to a property of crimina! trial. This provides that the orders should be passed by the concerned court for the proper custody pendlng conclusion of the enquiry or tria!; or to order it to be so!d or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evjdence as it thinks necessary; and if the property is subject to the speedy and natura! decay, to dispose ofthe same. This power should be exerclsed expeditiously a.ncj Judidous!y as a quick action wi!) nof render the owner of the articte to suffer because of its remaining unused or in some cases by jts mjsappropriation and the Court or the Poiice would a!so not be required to keep the artide in safe custody til! the disposal of the triai and if the property is a vehtcle, as in the present case, the quick disposa! is necessitated because it is of no use to keep such seized vehicle at the Police Station for a !ong period a.s ultimately the iong detention would render into a junk and the machinery as we!! as body would be of no use for nobody. !t is an a.dmitted position in this case that the -applicant- Rajesh Kumar Sahu is the registered owner of the said vehicte and the vehicle has not been claimed by any other person . Admittedly, no fruitfu! purpose would be served in keeping the vehicte in ido! condjtions and to wait for fina! decision ofthe case. In the facte and circumstances of the ca.se, particularly in reference to what has been cited above, i am ofthe opinion that ths vehicie must be released on interim custody to the registered owner. The petition is allowed. it is directed that the seized vehicte (Car) bearing registration No. CG 11 BA 9031 shal! be released on interim custody to the petitioner on foliowing conditions: i) He shal! execute a Suprudnams to the tune of Rs.3 iakhs. ii) He sha!! not alienate or transfer the property to anybody etee ti!! the disposal of the tria!. iii) He shal! not create any' third party interest on the property. Cr.M.P, No. 23 of 2007 iv) He shal! produce the property, as and when directed by the Court during the course of trial. v) He shall produce a solvent surety to the tune of Rs.3 iakhs, ensuring compllance of the conditions of the Suprudnama executed by the petitioner. The impugned order passed by She Court below is set aside. The petition stands finaiiy aliowed on the aforesaid conditions. -<^._ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge '/stti