( 2025:HHC:17164 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 431 of 2024 Decided on: 30.05.2025 Bhanu Pratap Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent/State: Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral) The present appeal has been preferred by appellant-Bhanu Pratap Singh under Section 454 Cr. P.C., against the order dated 04.11.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., whereby, application filed by the appellant for release of vehicle No. HP-33ET-9473 alongwith its keys and documents came to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.10.2017, an FIR No. 130/2017, under Sections 302, 364, 120B, 201, read with 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:17164 ) Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station BSL Colony, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. During the course of investigation, it was found that vehicle bearing registration No. HP-33ET-9473 was used for committing the offence and for destroying the evidence of the case, as such, it was taken into possession by the Investigating Agency. 3. Thereafter, the police had filed charge sheet against the three accused persons and they were tried by the learned trial Court and ultimately all three accused persons were convicted. After the conclusion of the trial, the present appellant- Bhanu Pratap Singh had filed an application for release of the aforesaid vehicle alongwith its keys and documents before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, H.P. However, vide order dated 04.11.2023, the application filed by the appellant was dismissed only on the ground that since the matter was pending before the Hon’ble High Court of H.P., the court was functus officio. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order reads as under:- “……….At the very outset, it is observed that matter is pending before Hon’ble High Court of HP and matter is functious officio for this Court as it is specifically mentioned in the judgment of this Court that the case property be dealt 2 ( 2025:HHC:17164 ) with the orders of Hon’ble High Court of HP in case appeal is filed against the judgment dated 12.01.2023. Accordingly, the application is dismissed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. …...” 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the records of the case. 5. It is an admitted fact that the appellant, who claims himself to be the owner of the vehicle in question, is not an accused in the present FIR. It is also not disputed that the accused persons were convicted by learned trial Court and against their conviction, they have preferred separate appeals before this Court, being Cr. Appeals No. 53, 55 and 62 of 2023. 6. During the pendency of the present appeal, status report has been called for from the respondent/State, wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that the State has no objection in case the vehicle is released by this Court in favour of the owner of the vehicle, i.e. present appellant. 7. Therefore, in view of the averments made in the appeal and also in view of the no objection of the State, the present appeal is allowed and vehicle No. HP-33ET-9473 alongwith its keys and documents impounded in connection with 3 ( 2025:HHC:17164 ) FIR No. 130/2017, dated 27.10.2017, under Sections 302, 364, 120B, 201, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station BSL Colony, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., is ordered to be released in favour of appellant- Bhanu Pratap Singh, who claims himself to be owner of the vehicle, subject to his furnishing sapurdari bond in the sum of 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) with one surety in the like ₹ amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court and also subject to the following conditions:- “(1) That the appellant shall produce the vehicle as and when directed to do so, (2) That the appellant shall not change the colour or identity of the vehicle so as to make it unrecognizable, (3) That the appellant shall not use the vehicle for the commission of any crime, (4) That the appellant shall not charge or encumber the vehicle until the disposal of the main appeals filed by the convicts, which are pending adjudication before the High Court” 8. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) May 30, 2025 Judge (raman) 4