39-criwp-535-22

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.535 OF 2022

YOGESH DATTATRAYA SUPEKAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

....

Mr. Z.H. Farooqui, Advocate for the Petitioner

Mr. .D. Sanap, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

….

CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.

DATE : 26 SEPTEMBER 2022

PER COURT:-

.

Heard finally with the consent of both the sides at

admission stage.

2.

The question involved in this petition is about release

of vehicle bearing registration No. MH-17-AG-4374.

3.

Heard Mr. Z.H. Farooqui, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. R.D. Sanap, learned APP for respondent

Nos.1 and 2/State.

4.

Perused the impugned order passed by the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nandurbar dated 16.12.2021,

which is confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

1 of 5

39-criwp-535-22

2

Nandurbar in criminal revision application No.5 of 2022 vide

order dated 24.02.2022.

5.

Mr. Farooqui, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the present petitioner is registered owner of

the vehicle. The report of the R.T.O. also reveled such fact.

The report of the R.T.O. is against the petitioner only to the

extent of change in engine number. He submitted that the

petitioner may face necessary prosecution for such violation

of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, for that

vehicle ;may not be detained in view of citation in case of

Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of Gujrath reported in

2003 AIR (SC) 638. The petitioner is ready to execute

necessary indemnity bond and ready to abide by the

conditions imposed by the Court.

6.

Per contra, Mr. Sanap, learned APP for respondent

No.1/State strongly opposed to release the vehicle. He

submitted that the vehicle in question, which was seized by

the police has two different number plates. Front side

number plate of the vehicle and the number plate on the rear

side are different. He further submitted that the engine

number mentioned in the RC book is different than number

2 of 5

39-criwp-535-22

3

appearing on the engine fixed with the vehicle. As such, the

police machinery constrained to seize the vehicle. He

submitted that it may not be just and proper to release the

vehicle in the above factual aspect about the tampering of the

engine number. He also pointed out the report submitted by

the concerned R.T.O. in this regard.

7.

I have considered the the submissions of both the

sides. Perused the F.I.R. and other papers. It is revealed that

vehicle bearing registration No.MH-17-AG-4374 came to be

seized in connection with crime No.233 of 2020 for the

offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 42 of the

Indian Penal Code. The present petitioner is found to be

registered owner of the vehicle as per the R.T.O. report. The

only factor against the petitioner is about chage of engine

number. It appears from the R.T.O. report that engine

number differs than shown in the RC book and the engine

which is fixed with the vehicle. Be that as it may, at the most,

the petitioner may face criminal prosecution for such

violation of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.

Section 182 of the Motor Vehicles Act would take care of such

violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. The petitioner

is a registered owner of the vehicle. The investigation of the

3 of 5

39-criwp-535-22

4

case is over, and the police have filed the charge-sheet against

the petitioner. As such, there is no propriety to keep the

vehicle in the police station campus. The vehicle is detained

in the police station since last 2

years. In view of

guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case

Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of Gujrath (supra), the

vehicle needs to be released. The petitioner can be directed

to execute indemnity bond. He can be even directed to abide

by the co