Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/2105/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2105 of
2010
=========================================================
MUZAFFAR
AYUBBHAI KURESHI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
YUNUS U MALEK for
Applicant(s) : 1,MRHBCHAMPAVAT for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR MR
MENGDEY, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 22/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule. Mr. M.R.
Mengdey, learned APP, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
respondent-State.
1. Petitioner is the
original accused No.4. He has challenged an order dated 07.08.2010,
passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Anand, in Muddamal Application No.192 of 2010, as upheld by an order
dated 21.09.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Anand, in Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2010.
2. One ‘Tata Sumo’
jeep, bearing registration No. GJ-9-H-2061, of the petitioner, who is
registered owner thereof, was intercepted by the police authorities,
suspecting that some unknown persons were using the said vehicle, for
committing theft of cows. In connection with the same an FIR, bearing
I-C.R. No. 87 of 2010, dated 17.07.2010, before the Vasad Police
Station was registered and the said vehicle was seized.
3. The petitioner,
therefore, filed an application for release of the said vehicle,
pending trial. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application
of the petitioner on the ground that the prosecution has given a
negative opinion, on the premises that such vehicle is likely to be
used again in commission of such similar offences, if so released.
Before me, however, there is no material to suggest that the
petitioner is, previously, involved in any such similar offences.
Therefore, the observation made by the learned Magistrate that, if
the said vehicle is released, the same shall be again used in
committing similar offences, is found without any basis.
4. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner submitted that no cow was found in the said
vehicle. The allegations of theft of cow are, thus, baseless.
Suffice it to say that I do not find this is a case, where the
custody of the vehicle is necessary for a just decision in the case.
5. In the result, the
order dated 21.09.2010, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Anand, in Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of
2010, is QUASHED.
The petitioner shall be handed over the INTERIM
CUSTODY
of the vehicle, on the following conditions:
(1) The
petitioner shall furnish bond of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees
Two Lac Fifty Thousand) before the trial Court;
(2) The
petitioner shall produce the vehicle, as and when so DIRECTED
by the trial Court;
(3) The
petitioner shall NOT CHANGE the possession or ownership
of the vehicle, till the trial is over;
(4) The
petitioner shall MAINTAIN the vehicle in proper
condition.
6. Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
Umesh/
Top