Prolonged custody of seized vehicles can cause decay; courts should allow their release under conditions.

1. The present petition under S.482 of CrPC has been filed seeking for releasing of seized vehicle Mahindra Scorpio, bearing Registration No. MP20 - HA - 4500, on Supurdnama.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the above seized vehicle was found to be involved in carrying 27 KG of Ganja. The said vehicle was seized by the Police Station, Kotwali, Kawardha, District Kawardha, on 27.12.2015 and since then it is in the custody of the said Police Station in connection with Crime No. 407/2015 registered under S.20 - B of the NDPS Act. An application was moved by the Petitioner under S.451 of CrPC for releasing of the seized vehicle on Supurdnama which was rejected by the Special Judge, Kawardha, vide order dated 22.01.2016 in Crime No.407/2015 leading to the filing of the present petition under S.482 of CrPC.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that one A.K. Nangal is the registered owner of the seized vehicle from whom the petitioner has purchased the same. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after purchase of the vehicle by the present petitioner from Shri A.K. Nangal, the vehicle was got registered in the name of the present petitioner. But, since the validity of the insurance taken by the earlier owner i.e. Shri A.K. Nangal was valid for the further period, the present petitioner had not got the insurance policy transferred in his name. He further submits that the registration certificate clearly depicts the chasis number and the engine number of the vehicle and which matches with the vehicle which has been seized, as also it matches with the details provided in the insurance policy. The petitioner is not an accused in the said offence. He further submits that since the vehicle is lying idle for more than six months no fruitful purpose would be served if the vehicle remains idle in the custody of the police personnel exposed to the extreme weather conditions. The vehicle would get decayed day by day and would further deteriorate by passage of time to the extent that it would become unusable after some time and therefore in the interest of justice the vehicle may be released to the Petitioner. He further undertakes to give any sort of conditions required till the finalization of the criminal case or for that matter any other proceedings initiated by the authorities.

4. Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat , reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283 : AIR 2003 SC 638 , wherein in paragraphs 7 and 17 the Supreme Court has categorically enumerated the guidelines for releasing of the vehicle seized by the police.

5. Counsel for the State opposes the claim of the Petitioner submitting that the nature of offence said to have been committed in which the seized vehicle is involved is quite serious and that the impugned order rejecting the Petitioner's application for release of the seized vehicle on Supurdnama does not warrant any interference by this Court as the reasons assigned for rejecting the application are just and proper.

6. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 7 and 17 of Sunderbhai : AIR 2003 SC 638 case (supra) has laid down the guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference the relevant portion is reproduced below:
'7. In our view, the powers under S.451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:
1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the ar