Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Shivaji Vaidya, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the orders of the Magistrate and the Revisional Court rejecting his application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for release of a truck bearing registration No. MH20-EG-2049. The truck was seized by the police in connection with Crime No. 100 of 2018 registered at M.I.D.C. CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The petitioner claimed that he had taken the vehicle on rent from its owner, Mr. Alim Patel, under an agreement dated 09.10.2017, and that he was not involved in the crime. He relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which laid down guidelines that vehicles should not be allowed to remain idle and should be released to the owners. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) opposed the release, submitting that the vehicle was stolen property and that a forensic report indicated that the chassis number had been tampered with by superimposing a forged number. The owner, Mr. Alim Patel, was an accused in the same crime. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the vehicle was not required for investigation and that the petitioner, being a third party, was entitled to its release. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the release of the vehicle to the petitioner on certain conditions, including furnishing a bond and an undertaking not to transfer or alienate the vehicle until the conclusion of the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Release of Seized Vehicle - Section 457 Cr.P.C. - Vehicle seized in connection with offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC - Petitioner claimed to be a hirer of the vehicle from the owner who is an accused - Magistrate rejected application, confirmed by Revisional Court - Held that the vehicle is not required for investigation and the petitioner is entitled to its release subject to conditions (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate was justified in rejecting the application for release of the seized vehicle under Section 457 Cr.P.C. despite the vehicle not being required for investigation and the petitioner being a third party.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Magistrate and Revisional Court, and directed the release of the vehicle (truck bearing No. MH20-EG-2049) to the petitioner on conditions including furnishing a bond and an undertaking not to transfer or alienate the vehicle until the conclusion of the trial.
Law Points
- Release of seized vehicle under Section 457 Cr.P.C.
- vehicle not required for investigation
- guidelines for release of vehicles
- vehicle as stolen property
- forensic report of tampered chassis number
