1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.676 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SRI MUHAMMED SAFWAN

S/O. UMMER MAHAMOOD,

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

AL RAHMA, KOTTAYAM,

MALABAR POST, MANGATIIDAM,

KANNUR, KERALA – 670 643.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI MAHESH KUMAR K.M., ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY SUDDUGUNTEPALYA P.S.,

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,

BENGALURU – 560 001.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, H.C.G.P.)

* * *

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING

TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 4-3-2021 PASSED BY THE

XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES AT BENGALURU (CCH-33) IN

CRIME NO.214 OF 2019 ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE

PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 451 READ WITH SECTION 457 OF

THE CR.P.C.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR

FURTHER

HEARING,

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

2

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner/RC owner

under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging

the order dated 4-3-2021 passed by the XXXIII Additional

City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS

cases, Bengaluru, in Crime No.214 of 2019 for having

rejected the application filed under Section 451 read with

Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing Royal Enfield

Bullet, bearing Registration No.KL-58 X-0891.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the petitioner and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, since

accused No.1 was found in possession of MDMA ecstasy

pills and caffeine, the Police arrested him and seized the

motorbike belongs to the petitioner. Investigation is going

on. The petitioner, being R.C. owner of the motorbike,

3

filed application before the Trial Court for releasing the

motorbike. The Trial Court dismissed the application of

the petitioner without giving any proper reason. Hence,

he is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended

that the petitioner is a friend of accused No.1. As a

friend, the petitioner handed over the motorbike to

accused No.1 when he came to Bengaluru. The petitioner

was not aware of accused No.1 carrying contraband

articles in his motorbike. Accused No.1 is released by the

Trial Court. Investigation has been completed and charge-

sheet has been filed. Vehicle is no more required for

investigation. The petitioner is ready to abide by any of

the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and he

will produce the motorbike as and when called for by the

Trial Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader has objected the petition.

4

6. Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the

record, the petitioner is said to be owner of the motorbike.

The motorbike is also covered with the insurance policy at

the time of seizure. The only contention of the

respondent-State is that the petitioner is from Kerala

State, if the motorbike is released, it is not possible to

secure the vehicle for the purpose of trial. Police have

investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet. Accused

No.1 is facing trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI v. STATE OF

GUJARAT reported in 2002 SUPP (3) SCR 39 has

categorically stated that it is of no use to keep the seized

vehicles at the Police Stations for a long period and

directed the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders for

return of said vehicles as early as possible. Therefore, I

am of the view that by imposing certain conditions, if the

motorbike is released to the petitioner, i.e. to RC owner of

the motorbike, no prejudice