- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
BALVANTBHAI JIVANBHAI SAPRA v. STATE OF GUJARAT
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, Balvantbhai Jivanbhai Sapra, filed a special criminal application seeking the release of his vehicle, a Wagon R car bearing Registration No. GJ-13-CC-3645, which had been seized as muddamal under FIR III-C.R. No.141 of 2019 registered at Halvad Police Station, District Morbi, for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The petitioner, who is the registered owner of the vehicle and was released on bail after being arraigned as an accused, requested interim custody of the vehicle. The vehicle had not been involved in any other case, nor had anyone else claimed interim custody. The petitioner undertook to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court upon release of the vehicle.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court can exercise its extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to order the release of a muddamal vehicle seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
- Whether interim custody of the seized vehicle can be granted to the registered owner subject to conditions, pending the conclusion of the trial.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The vehicle is duly registered with the transport department, as evidenced by the RC Book.
- The petitioner is the registered owner and has been released on bail.
- The vehicle is not involved in any other case and no other party has claimed interim custody.
- If released on interim custody, the petitioner will comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638), highlighting the problem of vehicles becoming junk in police custody.
- Reference was also made to orders of Coordinate Benches of the High Court which have released vehicles in similar circumstances.
Respondent-State's Arguments
- The vehicle was used for transporting liquor by the accused.
- Releasing the vehicle may enable the petitioner to use it for transporting liquor again.
- However, the petitioner is the registered owner, as supported by registration documents and identity card.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 | Addressing the issue of vehicles seized as muddamal becoming unattended junk in police custody and the need for their interim release. | The Court relied on this precedent to justify releasing the vehicle to prevent it from becoming scrap and to avoid unnecessary occupation of police station premises. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court acknowledged the submissions from both parties but chose not to delve into contentious issues under Sections 98 and 99 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act at this stage, reserving them for appropriate future proceedings. Exercising its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court considered the practical consequences of retaining the vehicle in police custody, such as deterioration into scrap and the reduction of police station space. It found that continuing to hold the vehicle as muddamal did not significantly contribute to the dispensation of justice pending trial. The Court also took note of Coordinate Bench decisions that had ordered release of vehicles in similar circumstances and found no reason to deviate from that approach. Accordingly, it granted interim release of the vehicle subject to several conditions designed to safeguard the trial process and prevent misuse of the vehicle.
Holding and Implications
The Court allowed the application and directed the release of the petitioner’s vehicle subject to conditions.
The conditions imposed include furnishing a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s value, filing undertakings regarding non-transfer and production of the vehicle before the trial Court, prohibition on use of the vehicle for transporting liquor, and procedural safeguards such as photographing and panchnama of the vehicle prior to release. The Court also allowed for videography if deemed necessary by the Investigating Officer, with expenses borne by the petitioner.
The direct effect is the interim release of the vehicle to the petitioner. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles and Coordinate Bench decisions.
R/SCR.A/1211/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1211 of 2021 =====================================================
BALVANTBHAI JIVANBHAI SAPRA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s) ===================================================== Appearance:
MR HB CHAMPAVAT(6149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NISHIT H SHAH(10712) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR L B DABHI, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 24/06/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the release of the muddamal vehicle i.e. Wagon R car bearing Registration No.GJ-13-CC-3645.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that on registration of the FIR being III-C.R. No.141 of 2019 registered with Halvad Police Station, District Morbi, for the offences under the provision of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, the vehicle of the petitioner has been seized as muddamal in connection with the aforesaid offence, however, the said vehicle is duly registered with the transport department of the Government and in support of it, RC Book is placed on record at Page No.1 of the compilation.
Page 1 of 4
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the applicant is arraigned as an accused and thereafter, released on bail. He further, under the instructions, submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and till date, the vehicle in question is not involved in any other case and even no one has claimed for the interim custody of the muddamal vehicle and if the interim custody of the said vehicle is handed over to the petitioner, he will abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court while handing over the vehicle. He, therefore, urged that this petition may be allowed on suitable conditions.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has urged that this Court has wide powers, while exercising such powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It can also take into account the ratio laid down in the case of 'SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT', reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein, the Apex Court lamented the scenario of number of vehicles having been kept unattended and becoming junk within the police station premises. Learned advocate has also placed reliance upon the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
5. Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and submitted that the vehicle in question was used for transporting liquor by the accused and if this motor vehicle would be released, it will be used for transporting liquor by the petitioner. However after referring to the documents produced on record with regard registration of certification and Identity Card, it is submitted
Page 2 of 4
that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle.
6. On thus hearing both the sides, without determining the other issues raised by the petitioner, in reference to Sections 98 and 99 and other provisions of the said Act and reserving that to be determined in future, in an appropriate proceedings being a contentious issue, this Court choses not to enter into that arena in the present matter and instead exercise the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
7. Further, from the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the petition, it is revealed that if the vehicle in question is not released, ultimately it would reduce to scrape and further the land / space of the campuses of police stations are also reduced to scrapyards. As against this, continuing the vehicle in police custody as muddamal, for various reasons, hardly turns out to be a factor for furtherance of dispensation of justice, on conclusion of the trial, as and when that stage is reached.
8. The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in number of cases, some of which are noted above, have released the vehicles. This Court has taken into consideration those decisions and the judgments / orders referred in those decisions. Having considered the same, taking any different view would not be proper.
9. Resultantly, this application is allowed. The authority concerned is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner, muddamal vehicle i.e. Wagon R car bearing Registration No.GJ-13-CC-3645, on the terms and conditions that the petitioner:
Page 3 of 4
(i) furnish a solvent surety of the amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle in question as per the value disclosed in the seizure memo or panchnama;
(ii) shall file an undertaking before the trial Court that prior to alienation or transfer in any mode or manner, prior permission of the concerned Court shall be taken till conclusion of the trial;
(iii) shall also file an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when directed by the trial Court;
(iv) in the event of any subsequent offence, the vehicle shall stand confiscated .
(v) shall not use this vehicle in transporting liquor in future.
(vi) Before handing over the possession of the vehicle to the petitioner, necessary photographs shall be taken and a detailed panchnama in that regard, if not already drawn, shall also be drawn for the purpose of trial.
(vii)If, the IO finds it necessary, videography of the vehicle also shall be done. Expenses towards the photographs and the videography shall be borne by the petitioner.
10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/ authority forthwith.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
Pallavi
Page 4 of 4
Alert