Allowed

Tuleshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2021CRMP/383/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a bail petition under Section 482 CrPC, setting aside revisional and trial court orders. The Supreme Court's mandate for expeditious disposal of seized vehicle custody applications was ignored, so matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remitted to trial court to consider application for interim custody within 30 days.

Tuleshwar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 383 of 2021

¶5

Tuleshwar Yadav S/o Shri Khemanidhi Yadav, Aged
about 25 years, R/o Village Kadamdhodhi, Police
Station Kapu, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

 ---Petitioner

¶7

 Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District
Magistrate,Raigarh,Distt.Raigarh,

¶9

Chhattisgarh.

¶10

 --- Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner :-Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate
For State:-Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

07/04/2021

¶15

1.The instant petition under Section 482 of the

¶16

Cr.P.C. is directed against the revisional order
dated 04/03/2021 by which learned revisional
Court has affirmed the order dated 08/02/2021
passed by the trial Court rejecting the
application of the petitioner under Section 457
of the Cr.P.C. for interim custody of his
vehicle in question which has been seized for
commission of offence under Section 41(1-4) of
CrPC and Section 379 of IPC and during the

¶17

¶18

investigation offence under Forest Act, Kasth Chiran Evam Viniyaman, 1984, Section 5( ख ), ( ग ) of Vyapar Viniyaman, 1969 and Section 41( ख ) ( ग ) of Avaidh Parivahan have been added by the prosecution agency.

¶19

2.Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, learned counsel for the
petitioner, would submit that petitioner's
application has not been considered in its
proper perspective and while deciding the said
application, the imperative mandate issued by
the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat1 has also not
been followed, therefore, the impugned order be
set aside.

¶20

3.Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned State counsel, would
support the impugned order and oppose the
submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner.

¶21

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶22

5. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) have emphasized

¶23

the need for expeditious disposal of the 1 (2002) 10 SCC 283

¶24

¶25

application for the vehicle seized in commission
of an offence. Paragraphs 15 to 18 of the report
states as under :-

¶26

“15.Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia,
appearing for the State of Gujarat further
submitted that at present in the police
station premises, number of vehicles are
kept unattended and vehicles become junk
day by day. It is his contention that
appropriate directions should be given to
the Magistrates who are dealing with such
questions to hand over such vehicles to its
owner or to the person from whom the said
vehicles are seized by taking appropriate
bond and the guarantee for the return of
the said vehicles if required by the Court
at any point of time.

¶27

16. However, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners submitted that this
question of handing over vehicles to the
person from whom it is seized or to its
true owner is always a matter of litigation
and a lot of arguments are advanced by the
concerned persons.

¶28

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

¶29

18. In case where the vehicle is not
claimed by the accused, owner, or the
insurance company or by third person, then
such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned
by the Court. If the said vehicle is
insured with the insurance company then
insurance company be informed by the Court
to take possession of the vehicle which is
not claimed by the owner or a third person.
If Insurance company fails to take
possession, the vehicles may be sold as per
the direction of the Court. The Court would
pass such order within a period of six

¶30

¶31

months from the date of production of the
said vehicle before the Court. In any case,
before handing over possession of such
vehicles, appropriate photographs of the
said vehicle should be taken and detailed
panchnama should be prepared.”

¶32

6.Reverting to the facts of the present case, it

¶33

appears that learned trial Court as well as the
revisional Court have not considered the binding
precedent and the principle of law laid down by
the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
(supra), therefore, the impugned order passed by
the revisional Court as well as the order passed
by the trial Court are hereby set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the trial Court to
consider it afresh within 30 days from today
after hearing the parties in light of the
judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of
Sunderbhai(supra).

¶34

7.With the aforesaid observation/direction, the

¶35

present petition is allowed to the extent
indicated herein-above. No cost(s).

¶36

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶37

Harneet

Tuleshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tuleshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Nanki Ram Kanwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Gajendra Kumar Sharma Vs Smt. Preeti Sharma

Purnendra Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Umar Vaishya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukhnandan Vs Gopendra

Shailja Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh