Allowed

Bharatlal v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2018CRLMP/1355/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside an order refusing release of a seized tractor and trolley. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the court directed the trial court to release the vehicle subject to specific conditions regarding identification, possession, surety bonds, and verification of ownership.

What did the court decide?

High Court set aside the order refusing release and directed the trial court to release the tractor with conditions including surrender bond, surety, and verification of ownership.

Bharatlal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 1355/2018

¶3

Bharatlal S/o Harisingh B/c Jat, R/o Jamalpur, Police Station Sadar, Hindaun City, District Karauli, Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Order

¶11

14/03/2018

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 14.2.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Tractor bearing Registration No. RJ-34-RA-6590 alongwith Trolley No. RJ 34 EV 0445 to the petitioner alongwith the order dated 27.2.2018 passed by the revisional court.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the tractor and the same is case property of case FIR No.61/2018, registered at Police Station Hindaun City, Karauli, for the offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 4/21 MMDR Act.

¶14

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMP-1355/2018]

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

¶18

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.

¶19

Taking 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 tractor seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-

¶20

a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification.

¶21

b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.

¶22

c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶23

(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.

¶24

Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle.

¶25

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶26

Mak/-

Bharatlal v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharatlal 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

Buddh Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Yogesh Vs Laxman Yadav and Ors.

Salim Khan Vs the Raj Financial Corp and Ors.

Smt Ritu and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Subhash Chand Meena and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sarvesh Pareek Vs State of Raj andORS