NAFEES IQBAL vs THE STATE-.
This criminal revision application arises from an order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (South), requiring the applicant to furnish surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 for the release of his recovered stolen vehicle, while retaining its registration documents. The core legal question concerns the appropriate conditions for the interim custody and release of a stolen vehicle to its rightful owner pending trial. The Sindh High Court held that victims of crime should not be unduly burdened or treated like criminals when seeking the return of their property. The Court set aside the impugned order, directing that the vehicle be released upon the applicant submitting an undertaking and P.R. Bond, along with instructions to the Registering Authority to maintain status quo and prohibit any transfer of the vehicle until the final decision of the matter. The key principle laid down is that interim release of property should balance securing its production before the court with avoiding undue hardship to the aggrieved owner.
- What are the appropriate conditions for the interim release of a stolen vehicle to its registered owner?
- Can a court require heavy surety and retention of vehicle documents when granting interim custody of property to the victim of a crime?
ORDER
1. ' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.---The short controversy involved in the matter, as stated by learned counsel for the applicant, is that the applicant is the owner of subject vehicle i.e. Car bearing Registration No.AJS-096, Make: Honda City, Model-2005, vide Engine No.LIZA2- 1023606 and Chassis No. NEBGE-15A95R123607, which was stolen and an F.I.R. No.45 of 2007 was registered at Police Station Gizri, Karachi. He submits that when he made an application to the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) then he was required to furnish a surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and in lieu thereof the registration of subject vehicle is retained and the same has been released. He submits that he is ready to give an undertaking that he will produce the subject vehicle as and when required and it should have sufficiently satisfied the learned District and Sessions Judge about the intention of applicant.
2. ' Haji Abdul Majeed, learned State counsel has added that direction be issued to the concerned Registering Authority of motor vehicles through learned District and Sessions Judge and documents of its be retained.
3. ' Exercising the right of rebuttal and in aid of his above contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case laws reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 1510 and 2007 PCr.LJ 166 and stated that in the given authorities even the applicant was not required to produce the car.
4. Keeping in view the above submissions of both the learned counsel, I have observed that the purpose of binding the applicant to produce the subject vehicle can be achieved after a direction is issued to the concerned Registering Authority of motor vehicles to maintain status-quo and not to transfer the said vehicle in the name of any person while the undertaking of applicant be kept on record. In such type of matter when the applicant has already suffered at the hands of criminal, he should not be burdened further and should not be treated like the criminal. In such a situation, the impugned order, dated 26-3-2007 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) is hereby set aside with direction that the applicant to submit an undertaking and P.R. Bond before the Court of said District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) and the said learned District and Sessions Judge is directed to return the document and to issue directions to the concerned Registering Authority of motor vehicles not to transfer the said vehicle in the name of anybody till decision of the matter.
5. ' In the light of above discussion, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed of.
Cited by 1 case
- METCO TEXTILE PVT. LTD. Versus State 2017 YLRN 289