IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26091 of 2011 Md. Sharif Alam, son of Late Haji Md. Hussain, resident of village-Papraur, P.S. Barauni, District-Begusarai. ……………………………………………………………Petitioner. Versus The Union of India……………………...............Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. ---------------------------------- O R D E R 5. 13.09.2011. The petitioner has preferred this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the order dated 9.5.2011 passed by Sri A.K. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Kiul, in R.P.F. Kiul P.S. Case No.3 of 2011, refusing to release the vehicle bearing registration no.BR 9E/3970 in favour of the petitioner and also the order dated 13.7.2011 dismissing the Criminal Revision No.130 of 2011 by the Sessions Judge, Munger as preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order dated 9.5.2011. 2. In brief, the facts leading to this application is that on the basis of the fardbeyan dated 15.3.2011 of the informant, Ajay Kumar Singh, R.P.F. Kiul P.S. Case No.3 2 of 2011 was registered on 15.3.2011. The allegation is that on receiving the secret information, the informant, A.K. Singh, alongwith other police personnels proceeded for patrolling duty and checking the railway track. In between the signal of Lakhisarai and Ashok Dham Halt, three persons were seen in suspicious conditions putting the bag on their head. On being alarmed and chased by them, two persons succeeded to flee away towards orchard near Ashok Dham Temple, whereas one of them was caught hold of, who disclosed his name Sindho Mahto. The police party also identified those two persons, succeeded in fleeing away, as Mahesh Mahto and Sanjay Mahto and the apprehended accused, Sindho Mahto, also disclosed the same name of those two persons. On spot, the police party seized four bags of sweet betel nut (supari). On query, Sindho Mahto confessed about the committing of theft by breaking the SLR of Lal Quila Express. On the indication of the apprehended accused, Sindho Mahto, the police officials moved towards the road then saw that 100-150 away from the temple, one Mahindra vehicle bearing registration no.BR 9E/3970 was standing. On that vehicle, 10 bags of sweet betel nut (supari) were found loaded on 3 which railway mark R 13/3/11 CPBT 981143 P-30 BWN V/MGS FR Praful Kumar To BWN were printed. On the driving seat of the vehicle, the driver was found in sleeping condition. On query, the driver disclosed his name as Dilip Mahto and the vehicle was seized. Further, on the indication of the apprehended accused, Sindho Mahto, railway property was also seized from the house of Ravi Sen Shah. 3. The petitioner, Md. Sharif Alam, claiming the ownership of the seized vehicle filed an application for its release under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of Sri A.K. Pandey, Railway Judicial Magistrate, Kiul, on 23.3.2011. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional P.P., the learned Magistrate, rejected the prayer of the petitioner to release the vehicle on 9.5.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.130 of 2011 and the same was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Munger, on 13.7.2011. Both the aforesaid orders have been assailed by the petitioner by filing this application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 4 the petitioner is the bonafide owner of the seized vehicle, the tax token and insurance of the vehicle are upto date but in spite of that the learned Magistrate has illegally rejected the application for release of the vehicle of the petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge has also dismissed the Criminal revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order without assigning any cogent reasons against the spirit of the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the petitioner is the bonafide owner of the seized vehicle, therefore, the vehicle should have been released in favour of the petitioner with conditions as per desirability of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. The State of Gujarat with C.M. Mudaliar Vs. The State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638. 5. The order dated 9.5.2011 discloses that the learned Railway Magistrate, Kiul, has rejected the application of the petitioner to release the vehicle in question arriving at the conclusion that the case is under investigation and there is request of the investigating agency that some facts will come in respect of the accused 5 persons and the seized vehicle, as such, till the investigation, the releasing of the vehicle is not justified. By the order dated 13.7.2011 passed in Criminal Revision No.130 of 2011, as preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 9.5.2011 of the Railway Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge, Munger, has also dismissed the Criminal Revision with the finding that on the basis of the materials collected during inquiry the petitioner is also being searched and, as such, at this stage it is not proper to release the seized vehicle. 6. The provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure casts the judicial discretion to the trial court to make such order as it thinks fit for proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. From the impugned order dated 9.5.2011, it appears that the petitioner had filed the application to release the vehicle in question claiming himself as bonafide owner of the seized vehicle. 7. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate 6 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. 8. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), to keep the vehicle in the compound of police station or court for long time till the completion of the inquiry or final disposal of the case appears to be not necessary and if a person claims to be as a registered owner of the vehicle, the same should be entrusted to him with the certain conditions as required in the facts and the circumstances of the case. The reasons assigned in the order dated 9.5.2011 by the Railway Judicial Magistrate in rejecting the application of the petitioner to release the seized vehicle and also the reason assigned by the Sessions Judge in dismissing the revision petition in order dated 13.7.2011 are not valid and in consonance of the spirit of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Under the aforesaid facts, the order dated 9.5.2011 passed by Sri A.K. Pandey, Railway Judicial Magistrate Kiul in R.P.F. Kiul P.S. Case No.3 of 2011 and 7 the order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Munger, in Criminal Revision No.130 of 2011 are quashed and the application stands allowed. The matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after hearing the respective parties. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)