Allowed

Kishan Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC6 Jan 2017CRLMP/3959/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan quashed impugned orders refusing release of seized vehicles. The court ordered issuance of *suo motu* bonds on furnishing of surety bonds and undertaking that vehicles be used only for agricultural purposes.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned orders; released tractor trollies to registered owners subject to furnishing bonds and undertaking for agricultural use only.

Kishan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B.Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 3959 1 2016

¶3

Kishan Singh And Ors

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of Rajasthan Through PP

¶6

r(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg

¶7

For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Shekhawat, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. J RA SHARMA

¶9

06/01/2017

¶10

This cr. Mis has been filed by the

¶11

petitioners with th

¶12

'It is, ther that this Misc. Petition may kin and allowed, the impugned order dated 22.7.2016 (Annex.1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Ajmer in Criminal Revision No. 2612016 and impugned order dated 13.7.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pushkar in FIR No. 92/2016, Police Station, Pisangan, District Ajmer may kindly be qpnshed and set aside and during

¶13

pendency of investigation and till conclusion of trial, the interim custody of following vehicles

¶14

Fr.~o.	1Registration No. of Vehicle	Name of Registered Owner
11	(014791	/Kishan Singh
I	1RJ01 RB 182	l~ara Chand I
3	RJ01RB0543	Chatra
5	1018392	shyam Sunder
6	~101~~0656	~mt. Ratan Kanwar

¶15

may kindly be order petitioners, who n the conditions to be imposed by t

¶16

e that on 9.7.2016, Shri Navdeep Singh, isor Vigilance, Ajmer Station, Pisangan inter-alia alleging room of Police Department inform r illegal mining of gravel sand in village Bhavanta. The police of Police Station, Pisangan was contacted and as per the directions of Mining Engineer, the Mining Department's party reached at Bhavanta village. On seeing the police with mining Department's party, some persons tried to run away. The party seized total 16 vehicles including the 6

¶17

vehicles of petitioners, which were not loaded from any mineral much less the gravel sand and six persons (not the petitioners) were arrested. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 9212016 was registered at Police Station, Pisangan for the offence under Section 379 IPC and 4/21 of MMDR Act, 1957.

¶18

" ." invesfi,cjation, 6 persons namely Khe am, Azaharuddin, Rama," I, Saddam +& and ra, who were arrested on the spot,, were granted bail under Secti 7 CrPC vide order dated 10.7.2016 passe agistrate (NI Act Cases), Court No.

¶19

registered owners instant FIR, applied for release o their during the pendency of the cerned vide order dated 13.7. vehicles on Supurdginama.

¶20

Against the order dated 13.7.2016 passed by the Magistrate concerned, the petitioners preferred revision petition, but that was also dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Ajmer vide order dated 22.7.2016 upholding the order dated 13.7.2016 passed by the

¶21

Magistrate concerned.

¶22

Hence, this criminal misc petition has been

¶23

filed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are registered owners and not the accused persons in the instant FIR. Further, their contended that the petitioners,are willing to furnish an *& d , undertaking not in question for commercial purp d for agricultural purposes only. He orders be quashed and set-aside and th e vehicles in question be given to the d reliance on the judgment deliver na High Court in the case of Satpal of Haryana in CRM No. M.7775 of 201 ided on 4.4.2013

¶25

On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

¶27

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the

¶28

(5 of 7)

¶29

[CRLMP- 3959/2016]

¶30

case, the impugned orders are set-aside and the tractor trollies are ordered to be released on Supurdgi in favour of registered owners subject to their furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned, but at the same time, I am of the opinion that it would be in the fitness of the things that in those cases where undertaking ha~~~been a.1‘, a fur'dsh etitioners or they are willin so, release of vehicle in tion would be perm'ltted subject to following conditions:

¶31

1. The vehicles registered for agricultural purposes ercial purposes. rnished by each their vehicle for

¶32

ing and a copy of o the respective vehicles are found used for commercial . :purposes, it would be seized immediately thereupon and the Transport Department would be at liberty to cancel the registration in accordance with law. The Police and Transport Department would keep a watch on tractors / trollies after its release.

¶33

The vehicles have been used contrary to registration given to them, thus release can be ordered as per the Rules. The applicants have been submitted before the Magistrate concerned, but they have been rejected. Looking to the aforesaid, a direction for release ers is given bject to payment of Rs. 4000:The amount .+ '& would be deposited in the ~ompetent~~c&urt. On 4 -- deposition of and receipt a lice / Transport tractor / trolley to those tractors / registration number h application for made but number permitted on the condition givenm.aforesaid 6rovided they produce the document to show application for registration on or prior to seizure of vehicle.

¶34

If any amount has been deposited by the petitioners earlier, then the receipt of it would be produced bewe the concerned court and

¶35

after deducting the amount already deposited earlier on seizure of vehicle in the present case, remaining amount would be deposited by the petitioners as per the direction in this case.

¶36

5. In case, a vehicle is registered for agricultural purposes, the petitioners would be at liberty to %, seek ~egisfrati ommercial purposes, if - _9 C_* -" an permissible. They would be free to-make ' application for registration of vehicle for commercial purpos,es and in that case, it would t authority.

¶37

the petitions are

¶38

disposed of.

¶39

ANDRA SHARMA)].

Kishan Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Singh and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sangeeta Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ajay Verma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Yashoda Sharma @ Jasoda and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Arun Behel and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Kailash Chand Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Kushal Chand Bader Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp