Allowed

Kayum Khan v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC7 Oct 2016CRLMP/116/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. setting aside an order that denied interim release of a seized tractor. The court directed the vehicle be delivered on 'supurdgi' upon furnishing security, holding no statutory bar existed without intimation regarding confiscation proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; vehicle to be delivered on 'supurdgi' on furnishing Rs. 6 lakh with sureties and undertaking.

Kayum Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.116/2016 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. STAY APPL. NO.2097/2016

¶4

Kayum, son of Shri Ishak, age about 28 years, by caste, Mav, resident of Village post Ladiyaki, Police Station Tapukara, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶5

Applicant/Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor

¶8

**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ *********

¶9

Shri K.K. Chhawal for the petitioner.

¶10

Shri Jitendra Shrimali, P.P. for the State.

¶11

¶12

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by petitioner against the order dated 14.12.2015 passed by learned court below and with the prayer that the vehicle i.e. tractor having Chassis no.2046596 and Engine No.2047814 in question may be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner.

¶13

It is contended that the learned court below by the aforesaid impugned order has dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking interim release of vehicle in

¶14

¶15

supurdgi during trial arising out of the FIR No.91/2015, registered at Police Station Khuskhera, District Alwar for offence u/s.379 of IPC and Section 41 and 42 of Forest Act regarding the transportation of the bajri in tractor.

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle in police custody. It may deteriorate its condition, which will be a national wastage. There is no statutory bar on the release of the vehicle on 'supurdginama' during the trial.

¶17

Learned counsel cited the judgement of division bench of this Court in Harun & 10 Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan-2015 (4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1743 and submitted that division bench in that judgement has held that Magistrate would be debarred from releasing the vehicle on supurdgi only when Magistrate receives intimation about the initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle. In this case, no such intimation was sent or received by the Magistrate. The revisional Court was wholly unjustified in holding that forwarding the FIR would be an intimation to the Magistrate, which is not the intention of Section 52 of the Forest Act.

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his

¶19

¶20

argument, placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Arif Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC 540 & Nanda Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC 608 .

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and supported the impugned orders.

¶22

Thus, considering all the facts and

¶23

circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for securing ends of justice.

¶24

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of learned trial court is set aside. It is directed that vehicle i.e. tractor having Chassis no.2046596 and Engine No.2047814 shall be delivered to the petitioner on 'supurdgi' on his furnishing “supurdginama” in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with two sureties in the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each, undertaking to produce the vehicle in question before the concerned court as and when required and shall keep the condition of the vehicle intact and shall not transfer, mortgage or otherwise alienate the vehicle or damage it and change its shape in any manner whatsoever.

¶25

The petitioner shall also furnish photographs of the said vehicle showing its numbers, colour etc. It is

¶26

¶27

made clear that in future if the vehicle is found to have been used in similar offence in future, the same would be liable to be confiscated.

¶28

Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶29

(Mohammad Rafiq),J.

¶30

RS/20

Kayum Khan v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kayum Khan v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Badri Narayan and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Janu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Babu Lal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Chandkaur Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Asstt Commissioner Comm Bhiwad Vs M/S Thapar Oil and Fats Ltd. Bhiw

Mohan @ Monu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp