Partly allowed

Dilip Kumar Yadav Alias Dilip Yadav v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Feb 2014Cr.Rev./38/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of his vehicle release application in an Arms Act case. Court held that if petitioner is the owner, vehicle should be released upon undertaking bonds to not prejudice prosecution or produce vehicle when directed, setting aside impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Court below directed to pass order afresh releasing vehicle if petitioner is owner upon undertaking bonds.

Dilip Kumar Yadav Alias Dilip Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No.38 of 2014

¶3

Dilip Kumar Yadav @ Dilip Yadav ..... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

…. Opposite Party

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar For the State : A. P.P.

¶9

2/14.02.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.1.2014 passed by Sri P.K. Sharma, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bokaro, in G.R. No.1690 of 2013, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle in question, has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that the investigation is still going on.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and the case relates to Arms Act, in which the petitioner was apprehended along with other co-accused persons, in the said vehicle, which is a Scorpio car bearing registration No. JH-09S-1003. The petitioner filed application for release of the vehicle calming himself to be the owner of the vehicle in question, but the said application has been dismissed by the Court below. It has also been submitted that the report was submitted in the Court below by the concerned police station stating that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the vehicle in question be released in favour of the petitioner.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances of this case, if the petitioner is found to be the owner of the vehicle in question, I am of the considered view that the Court below ought to have been released the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner upon taking such undertakings / bonds / sureties as the Court below may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, including the undertaking that the release of the vehicle in question shall not prejudice the prosecution case in any manner whatsoever and the petitioner shall produce the vehicle in question as and when so directed by the Court below.

¶12

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 3.1.2014 passed by Sri P.K. Sharma, learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in G.R. No.1690 of 2013, is hereby, set-aside and the Court below is directed to pass the order afresh in accordance with law and in view of the directions as above.

¶13

This application is accordingly allowed. Let this order be communicated to the Court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.

¶14

(H. C. Mishra, J)

¶15

R.Kumar/ Alok

Dilip Kumar Yadav Alias Dilip Yadav v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Yadav Alias Dilip Yadav v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Batai Lohra Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ranju Alias Ashasa Bibi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mahendra Hansda Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Archana Ekka Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Mithun Rai Alias Swapan Rai Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Nirmala Sinha and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand