Allowed

Mahesh @ Bantu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2021A482/6994/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed orders denying the driver of a seized tractor its release. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the directie authorities to hand over the vehicle upon production of a bond and guarantee.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; tractor handed over to applicant upon production of appropriate bond, guarantee, and security.

Mahesh @ Bantu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6994 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mahesh @ Bantu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing impugned order dated 2.2.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Court No.2, Mathura, in Criminal Revision No. 151 of 2020 (Mahesh @ Bantu Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 4.12.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, in Case No. 254 of 2020 (State Vs. Jafruddin and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 254 of 2020 under Section 457, 380, 411 I.P.C. Police Station- Farah, District- Mathura.

¶6

By the impugned order dated 4.12.2020 the learned Magistrate has rejected the application of the applicant for release of vehicle Tractor bearing No. U.P. 67 E2592. Being aggrieved the applicant preferred revision which was also dismissed by Revisional Court vide order dated 2.2.2021.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned orders have been passed without applying judicial mind in casual manner. Though the applicant is not the owner of the vehicle but being driver of the vehicle he has been instructed by the owner to apply for release of the vehicle and that there is no other claimant of the vehicle. Therefore, the impugned orders are illegal and liable to be quashed. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat decided on 1 October, 2002.

¶8

Per-contra learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned orders by raising various submissions.

¶9

It is not disputed that the applicant is the driver of the vehicle and it is also not disputed that there is any other claimant of the vehicle.

¶10

In Sunderbhai Ambalal (Supra) the Apex Court has held that-

¶11

'In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicle at the police stations for a long period. It is

¶12

for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."

¶13

In view of the above, impugned order dated 2.2.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Court No.2, Mathura, in Criminal Revision No. 151 of 2020 (Mahesh @ Bantu Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 4.12.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, in Case No. 254 of 2020 (State Vs. Jafruddin and others) are quashed.

¶14

Accordingly, application is allowed.

¶15

Authorities concerned are directed to hand over the Tractor bearing No. U.P. 67 E2592 Engine No. 514628855836 Chassis No. 914611721515 to the applicant on production of appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security. A detailed panchnama be also prepared.

¶16

Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned for compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.9.2021 S.Verma

Mahesh @ Bantu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh @ Bantu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Kumar Oberai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sabu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shatrudhan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Snigdha Bhatnagar Vs State of U.P. and Another