IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of evidence linking seized items to alleged criminal activity for their continued detention, ruling that lack of such evidence warrants their release.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Misc. Criminal Application No. 828 of 2022 in connection with S.T. Case No. 406 of 2022, arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No. 135 of 2022 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro rejected the prayer for release of the mobile handset and vehicle seized bearing registration no.JH-09AK-3031.

3. The brief facts of the case is that Jaridih P.S. Case No. 135 of 2022 has been registered with the allegation that the petitioner abducted the informant of the case and attempted to murder him, committed theft and wrongfully confined him and assaulted him.

4. Police during the investigation of the case, seized the Station Wagon CRETA 1.6 CRDI SX bearing registration no. JH-09AK-3031, and a mobile handset of XIOMI 11 Lite NE5G mobile handset bearing IMEI No.860588055247251.

5. The petitioner filed a petition for release of the mobile handset and the vehicle in his favour. The learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has observed that charges have been framed on 19.11.2022 and the case is fixed for evidence of prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro further observed that the petitioner is the owner of the seized material sought to be released by him and it has been further observed that the seized materials have been used by the petitioner who is the accused person of the case in the alleged occurrence hence, the prayer for release of the vehicle and the mobile handset has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after lodging of the FIR, the petitioner was taken into custody on 22.06.2022 and his mobile phone and Creta vehicle were also seized during the investigation of the case and now the investigation is complete and the petitioner has been granted regular bail so no useful purpose will be served in keeping the mobile handset and the said vehicle in question; in the custody of investigating authorities. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been observed in that case that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the police station for long period and appropriate order for its release must be passed by taking appropriate bond, guarantee as well as security. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner requires the said vehicle for his personal use and if the vehicle is allowed to remain idle at the police station premises for long without any shelter and proper care, it may be subjected to wear and tear and will cause undue loss and hardships to the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner requires the mobile handset for his personal use and undertakes to produce the same before the authorities or court; as and when required. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has committed grave illegality and perversity in rejecting the prayer for release of the said mobile handset and the vehicle. It is therefore submitted that the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Misc. Criminal Application No. 828 of 2022 in connection with S.T. Case No. 406 of 2022, arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No. 135 of 2022 be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the petitioner has used the mobile handset and the vehicle in commission of the offence hence, the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer for release of the mobile handset and the vehicle. Hence, it is submitted that this cri