0

Vehicle of accused bought via finance from bank to be released and handed over to the Bank, in case where the vehicle is in Police custody: High Court of Bombay at Nagpur

In the present case, a writ petition is filled by the petitioner Bank has challenged the order dated 14.01.2021 passed by the Add. Sessions Judge, Nagpur the application filed by the petitioner-Bank for release of vehicle was rejected. A single-judge bench comprising of Justice Manish Pitale adjudicating the matter of AU Small Finance Bank Limited v. State of Maharashtra (CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 221/2021) dealt with the issue of whether to allow the present writ petition or not.

The Petitioner it had financed purchase of Vehicle Mahindra Bolero, bearing Registration No. MH-40 KR-1489 by the Respondent. An FIR was registered against Respondent and another accused person for allegedly having caused the death of a person. The Respondent alleged along with other accused person gave a dash to the motor-cycle of the victim while driving the said vehicle and thereafter allegedly caused the death of the victim by assaulting him with stone. Upon registration of FIR and during the course of the investigation, the said vehicle was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer and it has been lying with the police as such. The Respondent was arrested in connection with the said offence registered against him and the other accused person under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Respondent submitted that if the vehicle is released in favour of the petitioner-Bank, it would most likely be sold and consequently, it will not be available during the course of the trial.

The Petitioners submitted that there was an error in passing of the impugned order and that the vehicle ought to have been released by imposing appropriate conditions, for the reason that the petitioner-Bank is admittedly financer of the said vehicle.

The Respondents stated that apart from imposing appropriate conditions, a direction may be given to the Investigating Officer to take photograph of the vehicle and to execute a panchnama before releasing the vehicle in favour of the petitioner-Bank.

The court held that in the backdrop of the fact that there is no dispute about the petitioner being a financer of the vehicle, there should be no impediment in directing the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner by imposing appropriate conditions. According to the facts and circumstances the Session’s Court failed to look in the correct perspective and erroneously rejected the application.

Hence the writ petition is allowed.

Click here for the Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *