The High Court emphasized the urgency in handling seized vehicles to prevent them from becoming junk, allowing release under specific conditions.

ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives Rule for the Respondent State. The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the release of the muddamal vehicle i.e. Ashok Leyland Truck bearing Registration No.GJ-09-Z-7490. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on registration of the FIR being C.R. No. 11193008220202 of 2022 registered with Babra Police Station, Amreli, for the offences under Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 21 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the vehicle of the petitioner has been seized as muddamal in connection with the aforesaid offence.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has urged that this Court has wide powers, while exercising such powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It can also take into account the ratio laid down in the case of ' Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat ', reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein, the Apex Court lamented the scenario of number of vehicle having been kept unattended and becoming junk within the police station premises.

4. Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner. However after referring to the documents produced on record with regard registration of certification and Identity Card, it is submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle.

5. Learned APP for the respondent-State has urged this Court that the appropriate conditions be imposed, while ordering the release of the vehicle.

6. This Court (Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, J., as His Lordship the then was) however in the case of in ' Anilkumar Ramlal @ Ramanlalji Mehta vs. State of Gujarat ' (Supra) in Special Criminal Application No. 2185 of 2018 , Dated: 05.04.2018, has also returned the vehicle recently under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, exercising its powers to do that even at an initial stage.

6.1 It would be worthwhile to refer profitably at this stage to the observations made by the Apex Court in ' Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), which read as under:

"15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.

that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.

suchseized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."

6.2 The Apex Court has, thus, directed that within a period of six months from the date of production of the vehicles before the Court concerned, needful be done. It even went to the extent of directing that where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the