A petition under Article 227 seeking to set aside an order imposing a Rs. 5 lakh security deposit for releasing a seized vehicle was dismissed as the High Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's decision.
Petition to set aside the order imposing Rs. 5 lakh security deposit was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 86
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1706 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mohammad Ashraf Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.
This petition has been filed with the prayer to set aside the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 148 of 2020 under Section 397 of 901 Cr.P.C. as well as order dated 11.12.2020 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ghaziabad in Crime No. 1833 of 2020, under Section 279, 304A Cr.P.C. whereby the Court below has directed the petitioner to deposit security amount of Rs.5 lac for releasing the vehicle involved in the alleged crime with an alternative prayer to stay the effect and operation of the of the above mentioned order.
The learned Revisional Court has rejected the Criminal Revision of the petitioner and affirmed the impugned order dated 11.12.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ghaziabad, who has imposed the security money of Rs. 5 lac for releasing the Bus No. UP15AT-1200, which has been seized in Crime No. 1833 of 2020 under Section 279, 304A under the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. It is also pointed out in the order of the Revisional Court in Revision No. 148 of 2020 that the vehicle was not insured at the time of the said occurrence.
In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order impugned and there is no justifiable ground for making any interference in it.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 5.8.2021//Fhd.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether permission to challenge a security deposit order under Article 227 requires finding perversity or illegality in the order.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Mohammad Ashraf
State of U.P.
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
