Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli Ananda Rasal, was an accused in Crime No. I-19 of 2017 registered at Parner Police Station for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 109, 212, 465, 468, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/25, 4/25, 27 of the Indian Arms Act, and the case was pending as MCOCA Special Case No. 02 of 2017 before the Special Judge, Nashik. The applicant was arrested on 22 January 2017. On 17 May 2017, the investigating officer seized a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle (registration No. MH12 JZ 3954) owned by the applicant under a panchnama. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The applicant filed an application (Exhibit 37) before the Special Judge seeking return of the vehicle, contending that the vehicle was lying idle in the open and its continued seizure would cause deterioration. The Special Judge rejected the application on 3 July 2018 solely on the ground that the applicant was in custody. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present criminal application before the Bombay High Court. The High Court considered the rival submissions. The applicant's counsel relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, and State of Kerala v. A.A. Ali (decided on 14 August 2018) to argue that the owner is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle. The State opposed, submitting that the vehicle was used in a serious crime. The High Court held that the Special Judge had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. The court observed that the mere fact that the applicant is in custody cannot be a ground to deny release of the vehicle, especially when the investigation is over and the vehicle is lying idle. The court allowed the application, set aside the impugned order, and directed the release of the vehicle to the applicant on supurdnama subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a solvent surety of the like amount, with conditions that the vehicle shall not be sold, transferred, or alienated, and shall be produced as and when required by the trial court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Return of Seized Property - Interim Custody - Sections 451, 457 CrPC - The court held that the mere fact that the accused is in custody cannot be a ground to deny release of the vehicle, especially when the investigation is over and the vehicle is lying idle in the open. The owner is best entitled to the vehicle on supurdnama subject to conditions. (Paras 4-6) B) MCOCA - Seizure of Vehicle - Release During Trial - The court observed that the Special Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by rejecting the application solely on the ground of custody, contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Special Judge under MCOCA Act was justified in rejecting the application for return of the seized vehicle solely on the ground that the applicant-accused is in custody.
Final Decision
The application is allowed. The impugned order dated 3 July 2018 passed by the learned Special Judge under MCOCA Act, Nashik, is set aside. The vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing No. MH12 JZ 3954 shall be released to the applicant on supurdnama subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a solvent surety of the like amount. The applicant shall not sell, transfer, or alienate the vehicle and shall produce it as and when required by the trial court.
Law Points
- Return of property during trial
- custody of accused not a bar
- vehicle lying idle
- owner entitled to interim custody
- conditions for release
