![\"\"](\"https://advsaikatrahman.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/IMG-20221115-WA0001.jpg\")
The Karnataka High Court has said that a Trial a court rejecting an application made under section 451 and 457 of Criminal Procedure Code, for release of a vehicle seized in a criminal case, by owner, on the ground of identification of vehicle during trial is not correct.
A single judge bench of Justice K. Nataraja allowed the petition filed by Javvaji Dhana Theja and other and set aside the order dated: 05.04.2022, by which their application for release of seized vehicles was rejected.
The bench in allowing the Petition placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 382, wherein the court has said that vehicles shall not be allowed to lie idle in front of the police station. The Magistrate or the Court shall dispose of the application for releasing the vehicles to the RC owners, by imposing certain conditions. Further it laid down guidelines for taking of the photographs by the investigation officer while releasing the vehicle.
Following the same the bench said, “Such being the case, the trail court rejecting the application for releasing the is not correct and if the vehicle are allowed to lie in front of the police station, there may me wear and tear and it cannot be possible for the police to bring the vehicles to the court for the purpose of identification.”
It added, “Therefore the impugned order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.”
Accordingly it directed the trial court to release the vehicle to the petitioners by taking out indemnity bonds with surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Further, the investigation officer was directed to release the vehicle by taking out the photographs of the vehicles in different angles along with the panchanama and produce the same before the trial court for the purpose of identification.
Case Title: JAVVAJI DHANA THEJA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA.
