The owner's right to reclaim a vehicle used in a crime can be upheld with conditions to prevent misuse, emphasizing the need to avoid unnecessary deterioration.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 03.11.2022 whereby the application of the petitioner for releasing the vehicle bearing registration no.HR-19K-0176 make Bolero Camper on superdari has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Pramesh Kumar got registered FIR No.62 dated 07.03.2022 under Sections 201, 202, 302, 341, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Kosli, District Rewari, Haryana with the allegations that Satyawan had committed the murder of his son. A copy of the FIR is attached as Annexure P-1.

During the course of the investigation 04 persons including Satyawan were arrested and on conclusion of the investigation, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC was presented against them. After framing of 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 02-05-2024 23:41:28 :::

CRR-2770-2022 #2# the charges the case is now posted for examination of prosecution witnesses.

3. The petitioner who is the registered owner of the Bolero Camper bearing registration no.HR-19K-0176 moved an application for the release of the vehicle on superdari which came to be dismissed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide impugned order dated 03.11.2022. It is the aforesaid order which is under challenge in the present petition.

4. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is nowhere concerned with the commission of the alleged offence as described in the FIR. However, during the course of the investigation it transpired that the vehicle in question had been used for committing the offence.

Admittedly, the petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle and, therefore, even though the vehicle in question might have been used for the commission of crime, the same ought to have been released to him by way of interim custody since neither the State nor the owner of the vehicle was to be benefited in any manner, if the vehicle was retained in the premises of the police station. On the other hand it was likely to diminish in value and the parts of the vehicle were also likely to be stolen. He thus contends that the impugned order be quashed and the vehicle be handed over/released to him on imposition of appropriate conditions. Reliance is placed on the judgments in Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai vs. State of Gujarat 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 380 and Gurbinder Singh @ Shinder vs. State of Punjab 2016(4) RCR (Criminal) 492 .

4. The Counsel for the State on the other hand while referring to the reply dated 08.01.2024 contends that the vehicle in question had been used to commit the heinous offence. There was an apprehension that if the 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 02-05-2024 23:41:29 :::

CRR-2770-2022 #3# vehicle was released on superdari, the same could be tampered with or used to commit another offence. He submits that the impugned order had rightly been passed and the vehicle ought not be released to the petitioner even though he was the registered owner.

5. I have learned Counsel for the parties at length.

6. In Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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.

16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that