SCR.A/16877/2024 of DILIPKUMAR BHARATDAS KUBAVAT Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 24 December 2024

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule forrespondent/s – State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition, seekingto invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court underArticle 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India for the release of the muddamalvehicle and to quash and set aside the impugned ordersrefusing to release the muddamal vehicle.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted thaton registration of the FIR being C.R. No.11189005240935 of Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that 2024 registered with the Morbi Taluka Police Station, Morbifor the offences mentioned therein, the vehicle in questionhas been seized as muddamal in connection with theaforesaid offence, however, the said vehicle is duly registeredwith the transport department of the Government and insupport of it, RC Book is placed on record.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted thatfor the release of the vehicle in question, the petitioner hadapproached the concerned Magistrate Court, however, the saidapplication came to be rejected and, hence, the petitioner hadapproached the concerned Sessions Court against the saidorder, which also came to be rejected and, therefore, thepresent petition is filed for the release of the vehicle inquestion. Further, under the instructions, it is submitted thatthe petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle inquestion and till date, the vehicle in question is not involvedin any other case and even no one has claimed for theinterim custody of the muddamal vehicle and if the interimcustody of the said vehicle is handed over to the petitioner,the petitioner will abide by the conditions that may beimposed by this Court while handing over the vehicle.Therefore, it is urged that this petition may be allowed onsuitable conditions.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has furthersubmitted that this Court has wide powers under Article 226of the Constitution. Learned advocate for the petitioner hasrelied upon the ratio laid down in the case of SunderbhaiAmbalal Desai versus State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003SC 638, wherein, the Apex Court lamented the scenario ofnumber of vehicles having been kept unattended andbecoming junk within the police station premises. Learnedadvocate has also placed reliance upon the orders passed bythe Coordinate Bench of this Court.

6. Learned APP for the respondent-State has stronglyobjected the submissions made by learned advocate for thepetitioner and submitted that the vehicle in question wasused for transporting liquor by the accused and if this motorvehicle would be released, it will be used for transportingliquor by the petitioner. However after referring to thedocuments produced on record with regard registration ofcertification and Identity Card, it is submitted that thepetitioner is the owner of the vehicle.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learnedadvocates for the respective parties, without determining theother issues raised by the petitioner, in reference to Sections98and 99 and other provisions of the said Act and reservingthat to be determined in future, in an appropriate

Procedure

proceedings being a contentious issue, this Court chooses notto enter into that arena in the present matter and insteadexercise the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution.

8. Further, from the submissions canvassed bylearned advocate for the petitioner, it is revealed that if thevehicle in question is not released, ultimately it would reduceto scrap; and further the land / space of the campuses ofpolice stations are also reduced to scrapyards. As againstthis, continuing the vehicle in police custody as muddamal,for various reasons, hardly turns out to be a factor forfurtherance of dispensation of justice, on conclusion of thetrial, as and when that stage is reached.

9. Further, the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court innumber of cases have released such vehicles. Keeping inmind the same, taking any different view would not beproper.

10. Resultantly, this application is allowed. Theimpugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. Theauthority concerned is directed to release the muddamalvehicle of the petitioner i.e.GJ.01.RU.4206, on the terms andconditions that the petitioner shall :

(i) furnish a solvent surety of the amountequivalent to the value of the vehicle inquestion as per the value disclosed in theseizure memo or panchnama;equivalent to the value of the vehicle inquestion as per the value disclosed in theseizure memo or panchnama;

(ii) file an undertaking before the trial Court thatprior to alienation or transfer in any mode ormanner, prior permission of the concernedCourt shall be taken till conclusion of thetrial;prior to alienation or transfer in any mode ormanner, prior permission of the concernedCourt shall be taken till conclusion of thetrial;

(iii) also file an undertaking to produce the vehicleas and when directed by the trial Court;as and when directed by the trial Court;

(iv) stand confiscated the vehicle, in the event ofany subsequent offence;any subsequent offence;

(v) shall not use this vehicle in transportingliquor in future.liquor in future.

(vi) take necessary photographs before handingover the possession of the vehicle to thepetitioner and draw a detailed panchnama inthat regard, if not already drawn, for thepurpose of trial.over the possession of the vehicle to thepetitioner and draw a detailed panchnama inthat regard, if not already drawn, for thepurpose of trial.

(vii) shall do the videography of the vehicle if theInvestigating Officer finds it necessary.Expenses towards the photographs and thevideography shall be borne by the petitioner.

11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.Direct service is permitted.

12. The Registry to communicate this order to theconcerned Court/ RTO / Authority forthwith.

SRILATHA

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.

Digitally signed by: SRILATHA VENKATARAO UPADHYAYULA(HC00185), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 24/12/2024 19:14:43