Gauhati High Court
Habibar Rahman vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 15 February, 2022
Author: Robin Phukan
Bench: Robin Phukan
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010205712021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./277/2021
HABIBAR RAHMAN
S/O LATE MAHAM SHEIKH
VILL- SIKARTARI,
P.S. KALGACHIA
DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
PRESENT ADDRESS-
C/O GURAJIT DAS
R/O SUNSALI TEA ESTATE,
P.S. NOONMATI,
DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:SRI HARADHAN DUTTA
S/O PRAMOD CH. DUTTA
OF SIMULTAPU O.P.
P.S. GOSSAIGAON
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N UDDIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 15-02-2022 Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarmah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent no. 1.
2. This petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner, namely, Md. Habibar Rahman, challenging the order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate(M), Gossaigaon, in Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 520/2021 under Sections 120(B)/379/411/420/171E IPC, read with Section 11(1)(a)(d)(e)(h) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
3. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned order, the learned Court below has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner seeking custody of the seized truck bearing Registration No. AS-01- JC-8171, of which he is the registered owner.
4. Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle was seized in connection with Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 520/2021 under Sections 120(B)/379/411/420/171E IPC, read with Section 11(1)(a)(d)(e)(h) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in which some buffaloes were being carried from West Bengal side and since then, the vehicle is lying in the Police Station exposing to the sun and rain. Referring to one case law in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Page No.# 3/5 vs State of Gujarat in (2002) 10 SCC 283, Mr. Uddin, learned counsel submits that in paragraph-17 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period and 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 and the said can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. And relying upon the aforesaid judgment, Mr. Uddin submits that since the Investigating Officer got sufficient time for investigation since 13.10.2021, the vehicle may be released in the custody of the petitioner being the registered owner of the same.
5. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sarmah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in spite of the Case Diary being available with him has submitted that he may be given 2(two) days time so as to enable him to obtain status report from the Investigating Officer.
6. Since the Case Diary is available with him, to the considered opinion of this Court no further report appears to be required from the I.O. concerned to dispose of the present petition, though vide order dated 06.12.2021, status report was called for.
7. It appears from the documents placed on record that the said vehicle was seized by the I.O. in connection with Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 520/2021 under Sections 120(B)/379/411/420/171E IPC, read with Section 11(1)(a)(d)(e)(h) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and since 13.10.2021, the vehicle is lying in Police Station and exposing to the sun and rain and the value of the same Page No.# 4/5 is diminishing day by day. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. By taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time, the same may be released in the custody of the concerned party.
8. It also appears from the impugned order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(M), Gossaigaon, that while dismissing the petition No. 623 filed by the petitioner, it has observed that as per report of the Investigating Officer, the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle but the learned Court below has dismissed the petition on the ground that Rule 5(4) of the Prevention Of Cruelty Of Animals (Care And Maintenance Of Case Property) Rules, 2017, provides that "where a vehicle has been involved in an offence, the magistrate shall direct that the vehicle be held as a security". It appears that no such direction to hold the vehicle as security has been passed by the learned Magistrate while dismissing the petition no. 623 filed by the petitioner.
9. Considering the submission of the learned counsels of both sides and further considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 24 lakhs with one solvent surety of like amount, before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(M), Gossaigaon by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall release the vehicle in the custody of the petitioner on the Page No.# 5/5 condition that he has to produce the same at the learned Magistrate whenever directed. The learned Magistrate will be at liberty to impose any other condition while releasing the vehicle.
10. In terms of the above, this petition stands disposed of at the Admission stage itself.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant