Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Return of Seized Vehicle in Criminal Case — Petitioner Entitled to Interim Custody of Vehicle Pending Trial as No Other Person Claimed Ownership and Vehicle Was Not Required for Evidence.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 101
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Fakruddin Ahmed Lohar, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking the return of a vehicle seized by the police during investigation of a crime. The vehicle was in the custody of the police and the petitioner claimed ownership. The petitioner's counsel argued that the vehicle was not required for evidence and no other person claimed ownership. The State, represented by the learned APP, opposed the petition. The Court, after hearing both sides, held that the petitioner was entitled to interim custody of the vehicle pending trial. The Court directed that the vehicle be released to the petitioner on certain conditions, including furnishing a bond and undertaking not to transfer or alienate the vehicle. The Court relied on the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empower the court to order interim custody of property seized during investigation. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench consisting of Justice S.S. Shinde and Justice P.R. Bora on 24th July 2014.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Seized Property - Sections 451, 457 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Entitlement to custody of vehicle seized during investigation - Petitioner claimed ownership of vehicle seized in connection with crime - No other person claimed ownership and vehicle was not required for evidence - Court held that petitioner is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle pending trial subject to conditions (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle seized by the police during investigation pending trial.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court allowed the petition and directed that the vehicle be released to the petitioner on interim custody pending trial, subject to conditions including furnishing a bond and undertaking not to transfer or alienate the vehicle.

Law Points

  • Interim custody of vehicle seized during investigation
  • Section 451 CrPC
  • Section 457 CrPC
  • entitlement to custody pending trial
  • no other claimant
  • vehicle not required for evidence
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (07) 8

Criminal Writ Petition No.664/2007

2014-07-24

S.S. Shinde, P.R. Bora

Mrs. Sabahat T. Kazi for Petitioner; Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for Respondents 1 to 4; Respondent No.5 duly served.

Fakruddin Ahmed Lohar

State of Maharashtra, Superintendent of Police Dhule, Police Inspector Azad Nagar Police Station Dhule, Police Inspector Local Crime Branch Dhule, Samartha Sahakari Pat Pedhi Limited Branch Nagarpatti Dhule through its Deputy Chief Executive Officer Shri Sachin Suresh Kulkarni

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal Writ Petition seeking return of vehicle seized during investigation.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought interim custody of the vehicle seized by police pending trial.

Filing Reason

Vehicle of petitioner was seized by police in connection with a crime and petitioner claimed ownership.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle seized by police pending trial.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel submitted that the vehicle was not required for evidence and no other person claimed ownership. State opposed the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a person entitled to possession of property seized during investigation is entitled to interim custody pending trial if the property is not required for evidence and no other person claims ownership.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned APP for State. When this petition was heard for admission on 28th January, 2008, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted before this Court that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle is not required for evidence and no other person claimed ownership of the said vehicle. In the light of the above, the petition deserves to be allowed.

Procedural History

The petition was filed in 2007. It was heard for admission on 28th January 2008. The Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 24th July 2014.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 451, 457
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Return of Seized Vehicle in Criminal Case — Petitioner Entitled to Interim Custody of Vehicle Pending Trial as No Other Person Claimed Ownership and Vehicle Was Not Required for Evidence.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Student's Petition Against University's Refusal to Recognize Diploma Course Admission. University's denial of recognition to a student admitted with government approval was held to violate legitimate expectation.