9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Can an absconding accused file an application to release attached property after two years from the date of attachment u/s 85 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)? Summary: Issue 1: Application to Release Attached Property After Two Years The primary issue addressed in this revision is whether an absconding accused, whose property has been attached u/s 83 CrPC, can file an application to release the property after the expiry of two years from the date of attachment, as provided u/s 85 CrPC. Facts: The petitioner, the sixth accused in a criminal case, absconded, leading to the attachment of his property u/s 83 CrPC. Despite the issuance of a proclamation u/s 82 CrPC, the petitioner did not appear within the specified time. He later surrendered and was released on bail. Subsequently, he filed an application u/s 85(3) CrPC to release the attached property, which was dismissed by the Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Court. Legal Provisions: - Section 83 CrPC: Provides for the attachment of the property of an absconding accused. - Section 82 CrPC: Provides for the proclamation for a person absconding. - Section 85 CrPC: Deals with the release, sale, and restoration of attached property. Specifically, sub-section (3) allows an absconding accused to apply for the release of the property within two years from the date of attachment, provided they prove they did not abscond to avoid execution of the warrant and had no notice of the proclamation. Court's Analysis: - The court emphasized that the purpose of attachment u/s 83 CrPC is to compel the appearance of the absconding accused. - An absconding accused can get the property released by appearing within the time specified in the proclamation or within two years from the date of attachment, provided they meet the conditions specified in Section 85(3) CrPC. - The court noted that the petitioner did not file the application within the stipulated two-year period and failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions that he did not abscond to avoid execution of the warrant and had no notice of the proclamation. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner's application to release the attached property was not maintainable as it was filed after the expiry of two years from the date of attachment and did not meet the conditions specified u/s 85(3) CrPC. The revision was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions. However, the dismissal does not affect the petitioner's right to approach the civil court for any other relief.
|
