BHOODEV KUMAR MAJHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. A four wheeler Mahendra Bularo was intercepted by Police Kulpahad, Mahoba on 16-11-2006 at 4. 20 p. m. There were five persons in the vehicle including the driver who fired upon the police but the police covered them and were able to apprehend two of them while the other three managed to escape. Fire- arms were recovered from them. The vehicle was seized and detained by the police. The owner of the vehicle applied before the Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas Act, Mahoba for release of the vehicle but the Judge declined. It is against the said order that this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Sri Tarun Kumar Tripathi and Vinod Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri R. D. Yadav, Additional Government Advocate for the State.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Lal Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) JIC 615 (SC) : 2003 (46) ACC 223, has provided the perspective in which such matters should be viewed and the sum and substance of what the Supreme Court has said is that, unless there are some unusual circumstances and compelling reasons, the vehicle should usually be returned to the owner. It is obvious that if the vehicle is detained at the Police Station for a long time, it will naturally get rusted by disuse.