Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 November, 2016
CRR-2932-2016
(KAMLESH JHARIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
23-11-2016
Shri S.P. Pandey, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Devendra Shukla, panel lawyer for the respondent/State.
This criminal revision is directed against order dated 28.9.2016 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla, in Session Trial No.162/2016, whereby the application under Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused for taking motorcycle no. MP-51 MD 2298 is his interim custody, was dismissed.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for temporary custody was dismissed by the trial Court solely on the ground that the accused persons were riding the motorcycle when they had threatened the prosecutrix to kill her and the charge has not been framed so far.
The petitioner has filed copy of the Registration Certificate, which shows that the petitioner is registered owner of the motorcycle. The vehicle us also insured in his name. The motorcycle is standing in the police station, exposed to elements and thereby diminishing in value day by day. The interim custody of the motorcycle cannot be denied simply because the charge-sheet has not been framed or it was being used when the offence was committed.
Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the application.
After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and on consideration of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, in my considered opinion, the rejection of the application for release of the vehicle during pendency of the trial is not in accordance with law.
Consequently, the application is allowed. It is directed that the vehicle i.e. motorcycle no. MP-51 MD 2298 be released in interim custody in his favour subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Judge for complying with the following conditions:
1. The vehicle shall be produced before the trial Court or the as and when directed.
2. The petitioner shall not alienate or part with the possession of the vehicle during the pendency of the criminal trial.
3. The external appearance of the vehicle shall not be changed in any manner so as to make it difficult to identify same.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE ahd