Allowed

Hanumant Bahadur Pal Alias Hanumant Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2018A227/6295/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the court set aside orders rejecting the petitioner's application to release a seized motorcycle. The High Court remitted the matter to the Magistrate to decide afresh, directing them to verify identity realistically rather than taking a purely technical view of document discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

Orders impugned were set aside and matter remitted to Magistrate to decide afresh after verifying petitioner's identity realistically.

Hanumant Bahadur Pal Alias Hanumant Pratap… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6295 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Hanumant Bahadur Pal Alias Hanumant Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The present petition has been filed against the order dated 17/18.05.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No. 12, Basti, order dated 26.07.2017 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2017 (Hanumant Bahadur Pal Vs. State of U.P.) by which the application filed by the petitioner to release his motor cycle has been rejected and to direct to the respondent/learned Court below to release the vehicle motorcycle Apache bearing registration no. U.P. 42 S-3453 in favour of the petitioner.

¶7

The reason for rejection of the application appears to be the discrepancy in the name of the applicant's father as recorded in the registration paper and as mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the release application.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such minor discrepancies could not have resulted in the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner inasmuch as there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is the person who was accused of the offence and he is being tried for the same. Then, it has been submitted no other person either by the name and description Hanumant Bahadur Pal @ Hanumant Pratap Singh S/o Late Ravi Pratap Bahadur Pal @ Ravi Pratap Singh, or any other name has claimed the motor cycle. It is further submitted, whatever discrepancy exists had been clarified by means of affidavit filed by the petitioner which has been completely overlooked.

¶9

Also, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State Of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 to submit in such cases, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the motor cycle seized as the same is bound to loose its value and turn into scrap upon disuse and lack of maintenance and up keep.

¶10

Learned AGA for the State does not dispute the correctness of

¶11

the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. However, it is submitted that the petitioner is obliged to prove his true and correct identity.

¶12

Having considered the arguments so advanced, it appears the learned court below has taken a very technical view. Accordingly, the orders dated 17/18.05.2017 and 26.07.2017 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law. In those proceedings, the petitioner shall be at liberty to prove his true identity.

¶13

Learned court below may take a realistic view of the matter to determine whether the applicant is the person described in the registration book of the motor cycle and for that purpose, if necessary obtain a report from the Regional Transport Office where the motor cycle may be registered. If the applicant's name and address tally with those on the registration certificate of the motor cycle, the learned court may give due weightage to the same and consider the discrepancy in the name of the applicant's father as recorded in the papers, accordingly. A purely technical view may not be appropriate at this stage for release the vehicle in favour of the applicant which order shall, in any case be conditional.

¶14

With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is allowed .

¶15

Order Date :- 4.7.2018 Abhilash

Hanumant Bahadur Pal Alias Hanumant Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumant Bahadur Pal Alias Hanumant Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mumtaz and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopi Nath Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vindhyavasini Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulab Singh @Nitin Vs State of Up and Another