Point of Law: Production of the vehicle is not necessary during trial and the photographs of the vehicle would be sufficient to be proved in evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Chandra Srivastava, Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri Madnesh Prasad and Sri Rajnish Pandey, learned State Law Officers and perused the material on record.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant application are that the first informant-applicant namely, Nishu Chauhan had lodged a first information report against the driver of the vehicle of U.P. 16AQ6334 with the averments that on 23.09.2020 at about 03:00 P.M., he along with his relatives on his Scorpio Car bearing registration no. DL 11CB 1383 from North-Western Delhi were going to Sector 134 NOIDA on the way, at village Nagli Sector No. 134 Noida, one white Innova car bearing registration No. UP 16AQ 6334 was coming towards Jaypee Greens Wish Town, which was colluded with the first informant's vehicle, due to which the informant's vehicle was overturned and damaged and the driver of the said vehicle ran away. Due to said accident, the first informant's wife, his mother, sister sustained injuries. Upon aforesaid averments, in Case Crime No. 0372 of 2020 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 I.P.C. at Police Station Expressway, District Gautambudh Nagar. Thereafter the matter was entrusted for investigation, which culminated into submission of charge sheet against one Vipin Kumar. During the pendency of the trial, the vehicle of the applicant was released in his favour vide order dated 02.11.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar subject to condition that during the pendency of the trial, the applicant shall not sell the said vehicle along with other conditions. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application dated 26.10.2021 with a prayer to permit him to sell his car, which application has been rejected vide order dated 23.11.2021. It is this order, which is impugned in the instant application.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the first informant of the case and his vehicle was colluded with the vehicle bearing registration no. UP 16AQ 6334, due to which the vehicle of the applicant severely damaged and during the pendency of the trial, the applicant moved an application for permitting him to sell his own Scorpoio car bearing registration no. DL 11CB 1383 on the ground that his car is not working properly and in such circumstances, the said vehicle may be permitted to be disposed of by the applicant but the application has been illegally rejected by the learned Court below on the ground that there was a condition in the release order that the applicant shall not sell his car without permission of the Court. He further submits after the accident the vehicle of the applicant is not running properly and if it sold now he would get a handsome market value, failing which it result into standing of the vehicle and the value of the vehicle would be depreciated. He also argued that the applicant is complying with condition that he will not sell his car after taking permission from the Court and thus the applicant has moved an application seeking permission to sell his vehicle but the same has been illegally rejected by this Court. to Apart from the depreciation of the vehicle, if the vehicle be kept/standing for long time it result in the vehicle becoming junk and natural decay. It is thus contended that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be quashed by this Court.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that vehicle in question was released in favour of the applicant imposing specific condition that the applicant would not sell/dispose of the vehicle during the pendency of the trial and if the applicant is permitted to sell his vehicle, then there will violation of one of the condition imposed in the release order and therefore, the impugned order is perfectly legal, just and proper, which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction.

5. The