Vehicles Seized By Police Not To Be Kept Under Open Sky At Police Stations Unless Essential For Investigation: Jharkhand High Court Reiterates

The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that vehicles seized in connection with police cases need not be kept under open sky at police stations unless their presence is required for investigation purposes.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, emphasised this principle while addressing a petition concerning a seized motorcycle.

“Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the vehicles seized in connection with police cases need not be kept in the police stations under open sky unless its existence is required during the investigation of the case or other,” Justice Choudhary observed.

The case involved a vehicle seized by the police for transporting doda, leading the petitioner to file a petition for its release, which was initially rejected. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the order passed by the Sessions Judge.

The petitioner argued that the value of the seized vehicle was diminishing daily as it remained uncared for in the police station premises. The petitioner also expressed willingness to furnish an indemnity bond and undertook to produce the motorcycle whenever required by the court or police. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgement in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which observed that vehicles should not be kept unnecessarily in police station premises for prolonged periods.

The High Court observed that the trial of the case had been ongoing for a long time with no conclusion in sight, resulting in the vehicle's value diminishing day by day. The Court noted, “the trial of the case is going on since long and there is no chance of the trial being concluded in near future and the vehicle is lying under open sky within the premises of the police station obviously diminishing its value day by day. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Cases), Chatra has committed a gross illegality by rejecting the prayer for release of the vehicle in question.”

Consequently, the order passed by the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Cases), Chatra, which refused to release the vehicle seized was quashed and set aside.

The court directed the release of the motorcycle under specific conditions:

• The petitioner must furnish an indemnity bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two solvent sureties of like amount, undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the court or police.
• The petitioner shall not sell, mortgage, or transfer the ownership of the vehicle during the case's pendency nor allow anyone else to ride it.
• The petitioner shall not change or tamper with the vehicle's identification during the case's pendency.
• Any additional conditions imposed by the trial court.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was accordingly allowed.

Case title: Anita Devi V. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 90

Click Here to Download The Judgement