- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Alok Kumar v. State Of U P
Court Opinion Summary — T.P. Garg, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
This revision/petition challenged the order dated 11-3-1997 of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aligarh, which had rejected the petitioner's application for release of his Motor Cycle No. UMT 2913. The motorcycle had been seized during investigation of Crime No. 251/96 registered at Police Station Sasnigate under Sections 147/148/149/302, I.P.C. The petitioner asserted he is the registered owner (supported by the Certificate of Registration and Insurance Policy, Annexures '2' & '3') and that the vehicle, parked in the open at the police station, would deteriorate over time. The petitioner sought its release and offered to furnish reasonable surety. The impugned order refused return on the ground that the motorcycle was case property and was used by the accused, Alok. Both parties' counsel agreed the revision could be finally disposed of at this stage.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the seized Motor Cycle No. UMT 2913, claimed by the registered owner, should be released when the F.I.R. does not disclose the vehicle number and the Investigating Agency no longer requires the vehicle for investigation.
- Whether the court below correctly refused release on the ground that the vehicle was case property and was used by the accused, despite the absence of identification in the F.I.R. and the condition of the vehicle while held at the police station.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Petitioner is the registered owner of Motor Cycle No. UMT 2913 (supported by Certificate of Registration and Insurance Policy, Annexures '2' & '3').
- The Motor Cycle was seized during investigation of Crime No. 251/96 (F.I.R., Annexure T) and is parked in the open at the police station, risking deterioration.
- The F.I.R. does not disclose the motorcycle number; therefore it cannot be concluded that the seized motorcycle was used in the commission of the crime.
- The petitioner is willing to furnish reasonable surety for release of the vehicle.
Respondent / State
- The learned Additional Government Advocate did not controvert the petitioner's contention regarding the absence of the motorcycle number in the F.I.R.
Court Below (Finding reflected in impugned order)
- The Additional District Judge found no ground for return because the motorcycle was case property and was used by the accused, Alok, in the crime.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the parties' submissions and the documentary record. It noted the following points relied on in the analysis:
- Agreement of counsel to final disposal of the revision at this stage.
- The F.I.R. (Annexure T) does not disclose the number of the Motor Cycle, and the State did not contest the petitioner's contention on this omission.
- The Investigating Agency no longer required the Motor Cycle for any investigation.
- The Motor Cycle was being kept in the open at the police station, where its condition was likely to deteriorate with the passage of time.
On these facts, the court found no cogent reason to allow the motorcycle to remain at the police station and concluded that release subject to safeguards was appropriate. The court therefore set aside the impugned order and directed conditional release.
Holding and Implications
Holding: This revision is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the Motor Cycle No. UMT 2913 is directed to be released.
The release is ordered on Supurdagi in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (other than in cash or bank guarantee) to its registered owner, together with an undertaking that the vehicle will not be sold or transferred and that its colour or shape will not be changed in any manner until conclusion of the trial.
Implications: The direct effect is the conditional release of the specified vehicle to the registered owner under the stated security and undertaking. The opinion does not discuss broader legal or precedential implications beyond the immediate relief granted, and no new precedent was articulated in the judgment.
T.P. Garg, J. -
This revision/petition is directed against the order dated 11-3-1997 passed by the IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aligarh, rejecting the application of the revisionist/petitioner for release of his Motor Cycle No. UMT 2913 allegedly involved in case Crime No. 251/96 under Sections 147/148/149/302, I.P.C.
2. Heard Sri Ratan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Both have agreed that this revision be disposed of finally at this very stage.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the registered owner of the aforesaid Motor Cycle, as per Certificate of Registration and the Insurance Policy (Annexures '2' & '3' to the petition) ; that a case vide F.I.R. (Annexure IT) has been registered at Police Station Sasnigate, vide Crime No. 251/96 under Sections 147/148/149/302, I.P.C. and during investigation of the said case the aforesaid Motor Cycle has been seized by the police. The petitioner's case further is that the Motor Cycle is parked in the open at the police station, on account of which its condition would deteriorate with the passage of time; that since the petitioner is the registered owner the vehicle be released and he is prepared to furnish reasonable surety for the same.
4. Vide the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge found no ground for return of the Motor Cycle on account of the fact that it was the case property and used by the accused, Alok, in the crime.
5. On behalf of the petitioner the learned counsel has referred to the FIR (Annexure T) and argued that the number of the Motor Cycle is not disclosed in the F.I.R. so as to hold that the Motor Cycle in question was the one which was used for the commission of the crime. The learned A.G.A. for the State has not controverted the aforesaid contention.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and that the Motor Cycle is no longer required by the Investigating Agency for any investigation, there are no cogent reasons as to why it should be allowed to remain lying at the Police Station where its condition is likely to deteriorate with the passage of time.
7. Under the circumstances, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and it is hereby directed that the aforesaid Motor Cycle be released on Supurdagi in the sum of Rs. 50,000 other than in cash or bank guarantee to its registered owner and on the undertaking that it would not be sold or transferred during pendency of the case and that its colour or shape would not be changed in any manner till the trial of the case is concluded.
Revision allowed.
Alert