K SingleBench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.'-^-f'^' /2011 Applicant ^..w-; ^•g^w\ SW^E0-— ..--•vf{ Ketan Jayantilal Raichura, aged bout 47 years, S/o Jayaritilal Raichura.R/o Infront of Magal Bhawan, Aamapara, Near Balak Chowk, Dhamtari VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Khamtarai.Raipur OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION PROCEDURE CODE OF CRIMINAL ^ <BI^TWfefi'°S wr an^i s>i*fi-» -^ :?5? •^!^l<rf'il, '^rflTFTS, TsTeTRTy -^C?::.(v'.;i^:,£c<.^i,.l, f ;00 sf^s vfv C^t^y^) waiwBftg sn^i ^Fihn^r =m?ff 4 •iya <i;sr^< ^i Sffip'f 31I^!I SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohaln Shrivastava, J. 18-11-2011 Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel|for the petitioner. Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Deputy on advance copy. Heard. This petition has been filed dated 22-10-2011 passed by the R rejecting application for interim affirmed. Learned counsel for the peti purchaser, who had purchased i Bovernment Advocate for the State, iby the petitioner aggrieved byorder Svisional Court, whereby order dated 16-09-2011 passed by the Judic|ial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, [sustody of the vehicle, has been tionersubmits that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser as he had purjshased the vehicle from the auction i an auction held by the Finance Company towards recovery of |he loan amount against the first purchaser. Learned counsel subynits that the first purchaser had purchased the vehicle by taking Learned counsel also submitted th|it the petitioner is not the accused in the case and it appears that beca| Finance Company and other perso| submitted that according to the rei|;ords of the Transport Authority, the petitioner is the registered owner| been seized, since 12-09-2011, ncj loan from the Finance Gompany. jse of some allegations against the is, offence has been registered. It is of the vehicle and the substantial investigation in the matter has alr^ady been held and the vehicle has useful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle in such a cor|dition. He lastly submits that in the OTl r, (ramima—l's/140—2/2011—1,50,000. "3-5? "^!^MIT, 'g'fftTFT^, ftdiy^ •aii^^'mfiFiR? gqisRi^rapiN; t sn^?w (•^3^') "L— event of grant of interim custody (nposed on him. abide by any condition as may be i^ °s".. ..Qn.the other-hand, Jearneil offence. alle§ed-to;-haygib^en comfnitted in connection with the vehicle, in addition to, tlteFe are speGific al alleged to have preparecl:faise docpments in the matter of transfer of the vehicle, arid therefore, the petitior|er is not entitled for grant of interim custody. The petitioner is not the acc(ised in the criminal case. Prima facie, it appears that the applicant had p(irchased the vehicle from the auction purchaseF.who had purchased useful purpose would be servecl the last more than two months.i petition and set aside" the order^ application for grant of interim cus) shall be released in favour of the . be imposed by the Magistrate. Ne( passed by the Magistrate within 4 production of a copy of this order[ Accordingly, the petition is a| ?>Pif"Rh W^ 4^W 5}°Tt?I<: ^ aifiti sv^s of the vehicle, the petitioner would State counsel submits that serious sgations against the accused, who is n an auction held by the Finance Company. The petitioner is the rebjstered owner of the vehicle and no in keeping the vehicle in such a condition, particularly when, the ve|iicle hasremained with the Police for Fherefore, lam inclined to allow the passed by the Courts below. The (ody is therefore allowed. The vehicle jaetitioner on such conditions as may ;essary orders in this regard shall be period of 15 days from the date of In case.conditions imposed by the Magistrate, are not complied with, ^rder of grant of interim custody of the vehicle shallbe liable to be cancellfed. owed. Ma"iddra sd/:chrwasta^a MohanS' Judge -—.,-L smiTtrg^fpi gaiTOBT,.(Tampn»—i's/i40—2/2011—i, 50,000.