- (1.)The petitioner faces an allegation that his vehicle was used for the commission of the offence of illicit removal of sand. The vehicle was seized and a crime has been registered. The vehicle was produced before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. That petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A2. The learned Magistrate appears to have felt that the indiscretion committed is gross. In spite of a direction of this Court, the petitioner allegedly indulged in the commission of the offence. For that reason, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the vehicle need not be released to the petitioner.
(2.)The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand taken by the learned Magistrate is most unreasonable. The disposal of the case is likely to take a long period. Till then, the vehicle should not be exposed to sun and rain. The Supreme Court has eloquently expressed the concern on this subject in the decision in Sunder bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [A.I.R 2003 S.C 638]. In these circumstances, subject to appropriate conditions, the vehicle may be ordered to be released to the petitioner, it is prayed.
(3.)I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The alleged violation may be gross, but even that cannot justify an insensitive exposure of the vehicle concerned to sun and rain resulting in an inevitable deterioration and loss. Subject to appropriate conditions, which will ensure, in the interests of justice, the vehicle can be directed to be released to the petitioner, I am satisfied.