ANZAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a mini truck bearing registration No. WB 37A-4857 carrying carbon was intercepted by the police and the said carbon was taken to be stolen property and hence a case was registered against the petitioner (owner of the vehicle) and also against the other accused persons and the vehicle was seized. Thereupon the financer filed an application for release of the vehicle but the prayer for release was rejected. Subsequently, the financer gave 'No Objection Certificate' when entire money was paid off. Thereafter, an application was filed through power of attorney holder for release of the vehicle but the prayer for release was rejected by holding that two persons are claiming ownership of the vehicle; one is the financer and the other one is the petitioner who never filed an application for release rather, got it filed through power of attorney holder but the aforesaid grounds are not tenable as it is only the petitioner who is now the claimant as the financer had already given 'No Objection Certificate' and, therefore, it was wrong on the part of the court to hold that two persons are claiming ownership and, therefore, the vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) Having heard counsel for the parties, it does appear that the prayer for release of the vehicle was rejected by holding that the petitioner had never filed an application for release of the vehicle himself, rather, he got the application filed through a power of attorney holder and that two persons have been claiming ownership of the vehicle. It is true that earlier the financer had filed an application for release but subsequently a 'No Objection Certificate' was granted by the financer which was never suspected to be a false document and in that view of the matter, only the petitioner can be said to be the claimant of the vehicle who filed an application through power of attorney which does not seem to be impermissible under the law. Under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the vehicle to be kept in the custody of the police, therefore, the court below seems to have committed error in rejecting the prayer for release and hence the order dated 16.03.2011 passed in G.R. Case No. 1712 of 2007 is hereby set aside. Consequently, let the mini truck bearing registration No. WB 37A - 4857 be released in favour of the petitioner on executing bond of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand) with one surety of like amount on giving undertaking that whenever the vehicle would be required, that would be produced before the court.