1. ' NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, J.---Applicant Imtiaz Ali seeks restoration of his white colour Cultus Car bearing Registration No,AGC-945, which is involved in the case/Crime No,135 of 2010 of Police Station 'IV Section, Khairpur under sections 302, 324, 353, 427, 395, P.P.C. And section 7-ATA, 1997. His earlier application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Moved with similar prayer before the trial Court, was dismissed, by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur vide his order dated 9-2-2011.
2. ' As per F.I.R. Lodged on 16-7-2010 by SIP Tufail Ahmed Bhutto, S.H.O. Police Station 'IV Section, Khairpur, the aforesaid Car was secured by them after the same was used by the culprits in commission of a robbery as well as murder of two police officials during an' encounter.
3. ' It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant Imtiaz Ali is the real owner of the Car in question, which was given by him to his driver namely Ayaz Ahmed for running the same as a private taxi, therefore, there is no fault on the part of applicant, if the same has been misused by his driver. He further contends that this taxi Car was the only source of income for the' applicant to earn his livelihood, but his family members are facing starvation due to the seizure of his vehicle.
4. He also contends that the Car is lying at Police Station in open, sky since' 16-7-2010 and its some parts have also been removed by the police officials.
5. ' On the other hand, the learned A.P.-G. Appearing for the State submits that since the Car in question was used in commission of a heinous offence, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for its restoration.
6. ' We have considered the above submissions and also perused relevant record including the impugned order which itself shows that the applicant Imtiaz Ali is lawful owner of the said Car as per such documents and that his driver Ayaz Ahmed together with others, has also been arrested by the police. Since none else, except applicant, has come forward to claim the Car in question therefore, there appears no cogent reason to deprive the applicant of the custody of his Car, allegedly used by his driver in the said crime, specially when the prosecution has yet to prove that such Car, was used by its driver with connivance of its owner. Moreover, it is not known as to when the trial of the case would be concluded hence retention of such Car at Police Station for an indefinite period, would deteriorate/diminish its value and the same is also likely to be misused and damaged, which is not allowable under the law.
7. ' In the circumstances, the impugned order calls for interference being not sustainable and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. The Car of the applicant is allowed to be restored to him on Superdari till final disposal of the case, subject to furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,600,000 (Rs,six lacs) only and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, with further condition that the applicant shall produce the said Car on the dates of hearing as and when required by the trial Court and he shall not change its colour or shape nor sell the same without prior permission of the trial Court, which is C also empowered to take over its custody in case the applicant fails to comply with any of the above terms and conditions. Before releasing the Car, the trial court shall also get it examined by Motor Vehicle Inspector, if it is not yet done.
8. ' This criminal revision application stands allowed in the above terms.