K.C. Bhanu, J. - (1.)The petitioner filed this Criminal Petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 28.11.2011 in Crl.R.P.No.92 of 2011 on the file of the VIAddl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Gooty, and praying to direct the respondent to release Bajaj Auto bearing Reg.No. AP 02 TA 1312 seized in Crime No.133 of 2011 of Tadipatri Rural Police Station, Anantapur, by permitting him to furnish third party surety before the concerned Court.
(2.)The petitioner claims to be the owner of Bajaj Auto bearing Reg.No. AP 02 TA 1312. The said auto was seized in connection with offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the accused in the case. He filed an application under Sec. 451 Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tadipatri, seeking interim custody of the vehicle, but the application was dismissed as the case was under PRC stage. A revision was preferred against the said order, and the same was dismissed vide impugned order. It is alleged that the auto in question was used after the commission of the offence. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is having knowledge of the commission of offence.
(3.)In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002)10 SCC 283 , the Apex Court has laid down that in case of vehicles seized during investigation, they should not be allowed to deteriorate by being kept unused and unattended in the premises of the Police Stations. Therefore, the vehicle has to be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions.