Allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to release a seized tractor to the petitioner, citing Supreme Court precedent, subject to four specific conditions including executing a surety bond.
Released seized tractor to petitioner upon execution of Surpdginama/Indemnity Bond with two sureties and other conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1028/2018
Kailash
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP for State
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Order
18/07/2018
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 11.1.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thanagazi, District Alwar, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Tractor No.RJ02-RB-1428 with trolley to the petitioner, alongwith order 6.2.2018 passed by the revisional court below.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle and the same is case property of case FIR No.138/2018, registered at Police Station Pratapgarh, District Alwar for offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 41, 42 of Forest Act. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicles in question.
Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, the learned Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the proceedings for confiscation of the vehicles have to commence and therefore, the vehicle could not be released.
[CRLMP-1028/2018]
(2 of 2)
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10
SCC 283 , to contend that the Supreme court has held that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful.
Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the vehicles seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-
a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicles so released intact and shall not change their identification.
b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicles as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.
c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/ indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.
(d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other conditions in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and sureties, which it may deem fit.
Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicles.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
Govind/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the seized vehicle should be released to the registered owner despite pending criminal proceedings.
Whether conditions can be imposed on the release of case property under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of GujaratRelied on¶19
(2002) 10 SCC 283 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kailash
State Of Rajasthan Through PP
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
