MAHAVIR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 29.4.2006 passed by learned Special Judge (D.A.A.) Agra in Case Crime No. 14 of 2006 under Section 364A IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Agra whereby the application for release of vehicle Maruti 800 bearing No. U.P. 83-B 6273 was rejected.

(2.) As per factual matrix of the case, on 9.1.2006 at 7 p.m. a FIR was lodged against Sanjay the son of revisionist along with others in Crime No. 14/2006 under Section 364A IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Agra with the allegation that Dipendra @ Dipu aged about 17 years was kidnapped. On 10.1.2006 the complainant received telephonic message by Visheshwar Dayal that they are reaching with Dipendra @ Dipu at Rohata Nahar and instructed the complainant to reach at Rohta Nahar with five lacs rupees. On this information, the police party along with complainant reached at Rohta Nahar where accused Gaurav Sharma and Kishan Sharma who were on two motorcycles were arrested and kidnappee Dipendra @ Dipu also recovered. Two accused who were on third motorcycle succeeded to escape from the recovery place. The accused persons, who were arrested on the spot, are said to have disclosed the name of escaped accused. The son of revisionist namely Sanjay was named as an accused in the FIR and Maruti Car No. U.P. 83B 6273 was alleged to be used in the said kidnapping. It is stated by the revisionist in the application that his driver namely Raja took the said vehicle on 18.12.2005 for the purpose of attending a function and came back on 22.12.2005 in the morning and stated that his cousin was seriously ill and died, hence he could not return within time. It is also stated that he had no concern or knowledge with the alleged incident. Since the vehicle is lying in open place of police station and day by day the condition of the said vehicle is being ruined. The son of the applicant namely Sanjay had been granted bail. Therefore, the applicant approached for release of vehicle but the said application was rejected by the learned Special Judge (D.A.A.) Agra by saying that the car being case property was alleged to be used in kidnapping.

(3.) Aggrieved from the said order, present revision has been filed.