Allowed

Hanuman v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC21 Mar 2018CRLMP/1394/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order refusing release of a seized tractor used as case property. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court directed the trial court to grant bail on the vehicle subject to an indemnity bond and other conditions, while remitting the issue regarding a separate trolley back to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; trial court directed to release seized tractor on imposition of conditions including indemnity bond and production for trial.

Hanuman Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1394/2018

¶3

Hanuman S/o Sukhdev B/c Meena, R/o Bhojyawala Ke Dhani, Village Rambas, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶7

Additional Engineer, Mines Department, Dausa.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP for State

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶11

Order

¶12

21/03/2018

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 7.2.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dausa be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Tractor No. RJ 29 RA 6917 to the petitioner. Further prayer has also been made to set aside the order dated 5.3.2018 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Dausa whereby revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶14

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.7/2018, registered at Police Station Sainthal, Dausa, for the offences under Section 379 IPC, Sections 4, 21 of MMDR Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMP-1394/2018]

¶17

Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, the learned Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle has to commence and therefore, the vehicle could not be released.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

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.

¶20

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 tractor seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-

¶21

a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released

¶22

intact and shall not change its identification.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CRLMP-1394/2018]

¶29

So far prayer regarding release of Trolley on supurdaginama is concerned, a perusal of the application reveals that no such prayer has been made before the trial court. Hence, matter is remitted back to the trial court to pass fresh orders regarding release of Trolley, if any, on supurdaginama.

¶30

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶31

Govind/

Hanuman v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman v. State of Raj and Anr.

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

Mrignayani Jain Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Sunil Jain Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Hanuman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Chayanika Rajput Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bhag Chand and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Bhairu Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.