Allowed

Nirmal Hansrajbhai Manek v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC2 Nov 2020SCR.A/6127/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court released a vehicle seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act as muddamal, setting aside a lower order of rejection. The Court imposed conditions requiring the applicant to furnish surety, file an undertaking not to alienate the vehicle, and produce it when directed, citing coordinate precedents and Supreme Court principles.

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized Hyundai Creta vehicle pending trial, subject to furnishing surety, filing an undertaking, and producing the vehicle as directed.

Nirmal Hansrajbhai Manek Vs State of Gujarat — Motor Accident Claims | Gujarat HC (2020)

¶1

R/SCR.A/6127/2020 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6127 of 2020

¶4

=======================================================

¶5

NIRMAL HANSRAJBHAI MANEK

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

=======================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR BHAVIN S RAIYANI(3855) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RB RAVAL APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1-2

¶11

=======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶13

Date : 02/11/2020

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India so also inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the release of the muddamal vehicle i.e. Hyundai Creta bearing Registration No.GJ-01-RM-0818.

¶16

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under,

¶17

2.1 The petitioner is the owner of the muddamal vehicle i.e. Hyundai Creta bearing Registration No.GJ-01-RM-0818 and it is duly registered with the transport department of the Government. However on account of registration of FIR being C. R. No.III77/2019 registered with DCB Police Station, Rajkot City for the offences under the

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

R/SCR.A/6127/2020 ORDER

¶20

provision of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, the
vehicle of the petitioner was recovered as
muddamal.

¶21

2.2 Therefore to get the custody of the said vehicle, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Court below being Criminal Revision Application No.8/2020, which came to be rejected by an order dated 31.01.2020.

¶22

2.3 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order rejecting the Revision Application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed present petition with a prayer to release the muddamal of vehicle.

¶23

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has referred to the RC Book placed on record at Page No.17 and submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and till date, no one has claimed for the vehicle in question. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware about the usage of the vehicle in question in commission of such offence under provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. It is submitted that the vehicle in question is the source of livelihood of the petitioner and if the same is not released, the petitioner would suffer grave hardship.

¶24

4. In support of his submission, learned advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of the coordinate benches of this Court rendered in Special Criminal Application No.7761 of 2018 rendered in the case of Pravinbhai Chhaganbhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat as well as the order passed in Special Criminal Application No.3494 of 2019 rendered in the case of M/s. Om Shakti Travesl vs. State of

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

R/SCR.A/6127/2020 ORDER

¶27

Gujarat. It is submitted that this Court has,
while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, released the vehicle
by imposing suitable conditions. In view of the
said, the present petition may also be allowed
releasing the vehicle in question by imposing
suitable conditions.

¶28

5.On the other hand, Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State,
while opposing the petition, has vehemently
submitted that the vehicle in question was
involved in the offence under the provisions of
the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and at this
stage, permission for releasing the vehicle in
question to the petitioner may not be granted. He,
however, submitted that looking to the documents
produced on record, it is revealed that the
petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in
question. That in view of the embargo contemplated
under the provisions of Section 98 of the Gujarat
Prohibition Act, 1949, the Courts below have
rightly not exercised powers releasing the vehicle
in question. Reliance has been placed on the
judgment in case ofPareshkumar Jaykarbhai
Brahmbhatt vs. State of Gujarat rendered in
Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017,
decided on 15.12.2017, wherein this Court held
that in view of the embargo, the Courts below have
no jurisdiction to hand over the custody of the
vehicle in question used in the offence. It is,
thus, submitted that the writ petition may not be
entertained and it may be rejected.

¶29

6.Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

R/SCR.A/6127/2020 ORDER

¶32

through video conference.

¶33

7.On hearing learned advocates appearing for the
parties and on perusal of the documents produced
on record including the facts mentioned
hereinabove, it is clear that the petitioner is
the owner of the vehicle in question, which was
seized in connection with an FIR being C. R.
No.III-77/2019 registered with DCB Police Station,
Rajkot City for the offences under the provision
of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. However, since the
vehicle in question, which is seized in connection
with aforesaid FIR, is kept idle at the police
station, in the place open to sky, it is likely to
reduce the life of the vehicle in question.

¶34

8. This Court in case of Anilkumar Ramlal alias

¶35

Ramanlalji Mehta vs. State of Gujarat rendered in
Special Criminal Criminal Application No.2185 of
2018, has directed the release of the vehicle by
imposing suitable conditions. Moreover, the
coordinate benches of this Court have also
directed the release of the vehicle applying the
principles laid down by the Apex Court in case of

¶36

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in AIR 2003 SC 638. Except the fact that
in view of the embargo provided in Section 98 of
the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, the Courts
below have rightly not exercised the powers,
nothing adverse has been pointed out by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for not
exercising the powers for releasing the vehicle in
question, by this Court. Thus, applying the
aforesaid principles of law to the facts of the
present case, this Court is inclined to exercise

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

R/SCR.A/6127/2020 ORDER

¶39

power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

¶40

9. Therefore in view of the above facts, the present petition is allowed. The muddamal vehicle i.e. Hyundai Creta bearing Registration No.GJ-01-RM0818 is ordered to be released, pending the trial, on the terms and conditions that the petitioner:

¶41

(i) furnish a solvent surety of the amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle in question as per the value disclosed in the seizure memo or panchnama;

¶42

(ii) file an undertaking on oath before the trial Court that he shall not transfer, alienate, part with the possession of the vehicle or create any charge over the vehicle till the conclusion of the trial;

¶43

(iii) produce the vehicle as and when the authority or the Court concerned directs him to do so.

¶44

10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/ authority forthwith.

¶45

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)

¶46

SRILATHA

¶47

Page 5 of 5

Nirmal Hansrajbhai Manek v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Hansrajbhai Manek v. State of Gujarat

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

Bharatbhai Jerabhai Khant Vs State of Gujarat

Ajaysinh Pravinsinh Solanki Vs State of Gujarat

Ranchhodbhai Dineshbhai Chavda Vs State of Gujarat

Bachubhai Nolkabhai Vasava Vs State of Gujarat

Ramdevsinh @ Rambha @ Nanbha Surubha Vaghela Thro Hareshbhai Prakashbhai Vasfoda (Solanki) Vs State of Gujarat

Arvindkumar Maheshbhai Vasava Vs State of Gujarat