The Criminal Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for the return of the vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

P. K. Jam. J.

1. Ms. Sushil Kumari. a lady teacher, working in a school at Hisar, was allegedly abducted on 30-4-1993. Her father handed over a written complaint to the S. H.0. Police Civil Lines. Hissar, on the basis of which a daily diary report was recorded. , On 8-5-1993, a close relation of said Sushil Kumari moved another application to the senior Superintendent of Police, Hisar, on the basis of which F. I. R. No.181 dated 8-5-1-993 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar, for an offence under sec. 364 I. P. C. Later on, the case was handed over to The Central Bureau of Investigation. The C. B. I. registered C. R. No.28 on 7-7-1994 at Chapdigarh under sec. 364, I. P. C.

2. The C. B. I. during investigation arrested the petitioner on 28-11-1994 and obtained police remand. On interrogation, a disclosure statement purported to have been made by the petitioner was recorded on 1-12-1994. At this stage, the offences under Sections 346/302/201 I. P. C. , were added in the said crime report. On 12-12-1994, the petitioner is stated to have made a statement under sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as as Code ). Since the Investigating Agency failed to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet within the stipulated period of 90 days, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail by the Special Judicial Magistrate. Ambala by order dated 2-31995 in the aforesaid case purported to be under sec. 120-B, read with Sections 364,30,20 1, I. P. C.

3. After completing the investigation, the C. B. I. filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences under sections 364/346, I. P. C. Accordingly, a charge under sec. 364/346. I. P. C. was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. An application under sec. 319 of the Code was filed on 18-6-1997 which was kept in abeyance till some prosecution evidence could be recorded. After examining 4 prosecution witnesses, the trial court came to a conclusion that prima facie the present petitioner i. e. Mukesh Kumar alongwith Shailender Bishnoi, Subhasli Bagri and Kuldip Godara abducted Sushil Kumari. wrongfully confined her, committed her murder and then threw her dead body in a canal. Consequently, Shailender Bishnoi. Subhash Bargi and Kuldip Godara were ordered to be summoned to face trial under sections 364, 346,302,201 read with Sec.120-B I. P. C. It was separately held by an order of the even date (Annexure P.5) that the present petitioner had been released on bail under sec. 167 (2) of the Code for the offence under sections 364, 346, I. P. C. only, and that since the cognizance had been taken for an offence under sec. 302, I. P. C. , against the petitioner by his order dated 1-10-1997 (Annexure PA ). the petitioner be taken into custody. The plea of the petitioner that he was released on bail in the case for the various offences including Sec.302 I. P. C. , was turned down, Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court for his release on bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. Shri Ajai Lamba. Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner was arrested in case RC. No.28/94 dated 7-7-1994, registered by prosecuting agency in not completing the investigation within the stipulated period of 90 days by order dated 2-3-1995 (Annexure P.3) by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel that in Annexure P.3, it is specifically mentioned that RC. No.28/ 91 dated 7-7-1994 was under Secs. 120-B read with Sections 364,302.201, I. P. C. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that when bail is granted on account of a default on the part of the investigating agency as envisaged under sec. 167 (2) of the Code, the same is granted in the case itself and not for a particular offence. It has been urged that the investigating agency or the Court cannot distu