Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 May, 2012
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Criminal Revision No.194 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.194 of 2012
Date of decision: 22.05.2012.
Pardeep Kumar ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for
Mr. S.K. Panwar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anupam Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana,
for the respondent - State.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 12.10.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which, claim of the petitioner to release his two vehicles i.e., motorcycle Bajaj Pulsar bearing Temporary No.HR-99T- 9239, Engine No.DJGBTJ97562 Chassis No.MD2DHDJZZTCJ 50682 and another motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor bearing Temporary No.HR-99T-1836, Engine No.HA10EAA9E21785 and Chassis No.MBLHA10EJA9E15762 on superdari, was dismissed.
The petitioner is facing trial in case bearing FIR No.12 dated 14.01.2011, under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The challan in the case has been presented before the trial Court. Criminal Revision No.194 of 2012 2
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the aforesaid vehicles and he is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions after releasing the vehicles on Superdari. Learned counsel further submits that the application moved by the petitioner has been dismissed only on this ground that the motorcycles are the case property, therefore, cannot be given to the petitioner on Superdari. Learned counsel further submits that both the vehicles were not recovered at the spot while committing alleged theft but still those were taken into custody by the Police after a delay of 15 days of the alleged occurrence. Both the motorcycles are in good condition and are being kept in Police custody without any justification and if the vehicles are kept in the same condition, its condition would be deteriorated.
Learned State counsel while opposing the preyer of the petitioner submits that the motorcycles are the case property and cannot be released on Superdari as that can be used for any such like offence.
Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order passed by the lower Court.
Indisputably, the petitioner is registered owner of the motorcycles as mentioned above and he is facing trial in the case.
Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking to the effect that as and when the Court would require the aforesaid vehicles, he will produce the same in the same condition before the concerned Court.
Criminal Revision No.194 of 2012 3
Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the trial Court; and he is ready to give an undertaking before the trial Court, since the vehicles in question are lying in judicial malkhana for a period of about one and half year. These vehicles will get damaged if these are lying unattended any more and no purpose would be served by keeping in such condition.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 380 (SC), wherein their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have analysed the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and viewed that no useful purpose would be served to keep the vehicle seized at the Police Station for a long time. Relevant observations in this regard are as under:
"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."
Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed, Criminal Revision No.194 of 2012 4 impugned order dated 12.10.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra is set-aside and the motorcycles-in-question are ordered to be released on Superdari to its registered owner during the pendency of the trial on his executing personal bond to the tune of `75,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the trial Court with an undertaking to the effect that as and when the Court would require the said vehicles, he will produce the same in the same condition at his own cost before the concerned Court. He shall also furnish an undertaking that in future, he will not use the said vehicles for such like offence.
22.05.2012 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE