KHURSHID Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order dtd. 4/3/2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka and the order dtd. 5/9/2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, whereby, the application for releasing the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-32GB7535 Chasis No. MBUWEL4XFU0236176 Engine No. SLT4FU220770 of the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was falsely involved in a case FIR No. 457 dtd. 4/12/2022 under Sec. 13(2) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the HGS Act') and Sec. 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, registered at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka. After the registration of the FIR, the petitioner applied for grant of concession of anticipatory bail, which was allowed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Nuh, vide order dtd. 15/12/2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that in the present case, the vehicle of the petitioner bearing No. RJ-32-GB-7535 was taken into possession by the police on 4/12/2022 and was ordered to be confiscated on 13/2/2023 as per the orders of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka, passed under Sec. 17(3) of the HGS Act. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is the special power of attorney holder of the owner of the vehicle. Moreover, the vehicle was also seized from the petitioner and he was entitled to get the vehicle released in his favour.

(3.) On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the vehicle may be involved in the same offence again. It is further contended that even keeping in view the stringent provisions of HGS Act 2015, the vehicle may not be released in favour of the present petitioner.