MADHVI PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. OR-02-R-0173 was seized in connection with Bhubaneswar Mahila Police Station Case No. 34 of 2004 corresponding to S. T. No. 61/439 of 2004 of the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner, who is working as teacher in Government High School, Kapilprasad, Bhubaneswar filed an application under Sections 451 and 457, Cr. P, C. before the said Court for release of the seized Motor Cycle in her favour on the plea that she is the registered owner of that vehicle, that she is not an accused in S. T. No. 61/439 of 2004, that due to the seizure of her motor cycle, she is facing hardship in attending her duty in the School. The prayer was resisted by the prosecution on the ground that the Motor Cycle in question was used by the husband of the petitioner in commission of an offence of rape and for escaping from the scene of crime. It was asserted that although the registration certificate of the Motor Cycle stands in the name of the petitioner, her accused-husband is the real owner of the vehicle and release of the motor cycle would amount to handing over the material evidence to the accused. Learned Addl. Session Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Bhubaneswar after hearing the parties refused to release the motor cycle in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. read with Sec. 401 of the Cr. P. C. to set aside order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Bhubaneswar to direct release of motor cycle in her favour.

(2.) Mr. P. K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle and not being an accused in S. T. No. 61/439 of 2004 of the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Bhubaneswar, the vehicle should have been released in her favour. According to him, the seized motor cycle is lying at the Police Station for a considerable time and its value and utility is decreasing day by day and keeping the vehicle like that indefinitely would cause unnecessary loss, but the trial Court failed to consider this angle. Mr. Rath claimed that the impugned order is unreasonable, arbitrary, against the settled norms of law and should be quashed.

(3.) Mr. M. Dhal, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, on the other hand, indicated that although the motor cycle stands registered in the name of the petitioner, the same is virtually used by her husband-accused and when the husband-accused used the motor cycle in commission of a crime like rape, the motor cycle could not have been released in favour of the petitioner, because such release would have in fact amounted to release of the vehicle in favour of the accused.