RADHE SHYAM BARIK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

(2.) Assailing the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila dated 21.11.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 224/08 rejecting the criminal revision application filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial court by which the petitioner's prayer for release of his vehicle namely a Maxi Taxi bearing registration No. BR-16P-0229 was rejected; counsel for the petitioner submits that both the trial court as also the revisional court have committed serious error both on facts as well as on law in refusing to release the petitioner's vehicle.

(3.) Explaining the facts of the case, learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is the owner of the Maxi Taxi which is used for commercial purposes. The vehicle was seized by the police in connection with a case registered at the Ghatsila Police Station and the petitioner has been made accused in the said case only on the ground that he happens to be the owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was seized on the allegation that it was uses for the purpose of ferrying the accused persons to the place of occurrence. Learned Counsel adds that the refusal of the petitioner's prayer for release of the vehicle has been made by the court below only on the ground that the petitioner could not produce the documents pertaining to the ownership of the vehicle, although the fact is that the petitioner did produce the copies of the ownership documents of the vehicle not only before the concerned police officer but also before the trial court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has since been granted bail in the aforementioned case petitioner's vehicle being a commercial vehicle, the release of the vehicle cannot be refused without assigning any legally permissible grounds. In this context, learned counsel would refer to the provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C.