Allowed

Ibne Hasan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2019A482/25455/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of orders refusing release of case property was disposed upon. The High Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the applicant to file a fresh application for property release, with the court considering the matter afresh within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside. Application directed to move fresh application for release of property within six months.

Ibne Hasan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25455 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ibne Hasan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Mobin Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Kumar Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Case called out. Sri M.M.Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.Rai,learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Abhinav Prasad,learned AGA for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

The instant 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 1.10.2018 passed by Revisional Court/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad and order dated 18.4.2016 passed by A.C.J.M.,Railway, Allahabad, in case no.775 of 2016,, arising out of Case Crime No.228 of 2015 (State vs.Mohd. Pervez Alam), under section 143 Railways Act. Police Station R.P.F., Post Naini, District Allahabad.

¶7

Submission of the leaned counsel for the applicant is that he had moved an application for the release of the case property of the above case, but the A.C.J.M.,Railway rejected the application vide order dated 18.4.2016.

¶8

Aggrieved by this order the applicant preferred the revision before the Addl. District &Sessions Judge, Allahabad and that was also rejected on 1.10.2018.

¶9

It is contended that the applicant is an authorized E-Ticketing Agent and certain articles are in the Malkhana of Police Station R.P.F.Naini, Allahabad. It is next contended that the same may be released after imposing some condition upon the applicant.

¶10

In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgement in the case of Sundebhai Ambalal Desai Vs.State of Gujrat reported in 2003(1)JIC 415 (SC) wherein it has been held that to avoid such a situation, powers under section 451 Cr.P.C.should be exercised promptly and at the earliest.

¶11

In view of the above the impugned orders dated 1.10.2019 and 18.4.2015 passed in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.

¶12

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the applicant is directed to move an application for release of the property in question before the court concerned, who shall consider and decidethe same afresh keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Sundebhai Ambalal Desai Vs.State of Gujrt reported in 2003(1)JIC 415 (SC) within six month from the date of production of certified copy of the order before it.

¶13

With the above observations, the application steads disposed off.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.9.2019 IA

Ibne Hasan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibne Hasan v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Salman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Vs State of U.P.

Sanni Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Paratap Agarval Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Shanker Pandey @ Mikkoo Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajnish Pandey @ Ajay Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Anr.