ANIRUDH RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. Heard parties Counsel in Crime No. 272/90 under Sections 147/148/149/364/307/504/506 I. P. C. and Gangster Act, P. S. Kotwali; District Azamgarh, Ambassador Car UPQ 781 is said to have been used in commission of the offence of abduction. This car is further said to be the genesis of the prosecution story. It was recovered from the revisionist. He applied for release of the Car. It is not disputed that he is registered owner of the Car. On 3. 5. 90 Special Judge (Gangsters Act) Gorakhapur dismissed the release application with the observations that at that stage there was no justification for release and the papers relating to vehicle were not produced. Then the revisionist moved fresh application for release which was disposed of by impugned order dated 25. 5. 90 In this order it was said that final order had already been passed any now the application was not maintainable, hence release was refused.

(2.) IN this revision it is argued on behalf of the revisionist that the car is in police custody and is lying at Kotwali. If it is allowed to remain there it will deteriorate to the extent where it will not be usable and the revisionist would suffer irreparable loss. It is further urged that whenever the car would be required to be produced before the Court, revisionist shall produce the same before the court. IN the circumstances of the case where the car has already remained lying for more than 8 months, further detention of the car in the police custody will render the car absolutely unusable. Revisionist can be compelled to produce the car before the court, whenever required by asking him to furnish personal bonds and sureties.