The relevance of a seized vehicle as a material exhibit in an ongoing trial may outweigh the claim of ownership by the petitioner, leading to the refusal of release by the court.

Heard Shri Digvijay Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Awdhesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for directing to release seized Hero Honda (Passion Pro) Motorcycle bearing Registration No.BR44B-2469, Engine No.HA106DBGA 28922, Chassis No.MBLHA10EWBGA06632 by quashing the order dated 5.11.2011 in connection with Buxar Town P.S. Case No.231 of 2011, Sessions Trial No.244 of 2011 registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle in question is registered in the name of petitioner and vehicle was seized during investigation of the aforesaid case. The vehicle in question was taken up by the police and seized. Since the petitioner was bonafide owner of the vehicle in question, petition was filed before the court below for release of the vehicle. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Buxar has rejected the petition for release by the impugned order.

4. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the impugned order as well as for issuance of direction for release of the vehicle in question. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that time without number, it has been held by the apex court that in such cases, vehicle should not be kept in police custody or in court custody, otherwise the vehicle in question may be destroyed.

5. In this case, opposite party no.2 has filed a detailed counter affidavit and opposed the prayer of the petitioner mainly on the ground that vehicle in question is a material exhibit, which is required to be identified during the trial and if same is directed to be released, there is every possibility that the description of the vehicle in question may be changed, which will put hindrance during the trial.

6. Short fact of the case is that the son of the petitioner was made accused in Buxar Town P.S. Case No.231 of 2011 for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code on an allegation that three accused persons including the son of the petitioner had killed one of the businessman by fire arm injury due to non payment of rangdari in his shop. At the time of occurrence, the accused persons were moving on the alleged motorcycle. During investigation, it transpired that son of the petitioner was a veteran criminal and accused in number of cases of serious nature. During investigation, the motorcycle was seized. Detailed of antecedent of son of the petitioner has been mentioned in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit. The son of the petitioner was also put on T.I. Parade and identified. All those facts have been asserted in the counter affidavit. In some and substance, it has been indicated that vehicle in question is a relevant material exhibit and may not be released that too while trial is already going on.

7. In view of the fact that trial is already continuing and the vehicle in question is a material exhibit, it would not be proper to either interfere with the impugned order or for directing to release the vehicle in question.

8. The petition stands dismissed.