BABLI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'CrPC') has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, VI, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 260 of 2012 arising out of Sultanganj P. S. Case No. 45 of 2011.

(2.) Mr. S. K. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the Bolero vehicle bearing registration no. JH-15D-9859, which was seized in connection with Sultanganj P. S. Case No. 45 of 2011 instituted for the offences punishable inter alia under Sections 121A, 122, 124A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 25 (1B)(a), 25(1)(1A), 35 and 34 of the Arms Act and 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The petitioner being the registered owner having valid document of said Bolero vehicle moved before the learned trial judge for release of the same. However, the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 28.09.2015. He submitted that the impugned order of rejection would show that the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected only in view of gravity of the charge as also in view of the fact that the informant and the investigating officer were not examined during trial. According to him, these facts could not have been the ground for denying release of the vehicle in question. He submitted that the order impugned has been passed in complete disregard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283] , Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 290] and General Insurance Council and Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [(2010) 6 SCC 768]. He submitted that in the aforestated judgments, the Supreme Court considered the horrifying situation of the case property such as vehicles, machines etc. found lying in police station premises and Court premises and ultimately becoming junk and loosing their value.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the offences are quite serious in nature and the release of the vehicle would not be in the interest of justice. He submitted that till date the trial has not been concluded and certain witnesses are yet to be examined. In that view of the matter, if the vehicle would be released a valuable piece of evidence would be lost. According to him, the order impugned in the present application does not suffer from any illegality.