Allowed

Sardar Singh v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajasthan HC16 Aug 2018CRLMP/2019/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petitioner's claim for the release of a vehicle seized as case property, directing the trial court to grant it subject to conditions including producing a surety bond and verifying ownership.

What did the court decide?

Directing the trial court to release the seized vehicle subject to conditions regarding identification, production for trial, and surety bonds.

Sardar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2019/2017

¶3

Sardar Singh S/o Bheru Singh B/c Rajput , R/o Negi Pada, Ward No. 34, Bundi Distt. Bundi Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudarshan Laddha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP for State

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Order

¶11

16/08/2018

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Tata Indigo Car No.RJ30-TA-0830, to the petitioner alongwith order dated 23.8.2016 passed by the revisional court below.

¶13

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.481/2014, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bundi for offences under Sections 411, 414, 420, 424, 468, 471, 474, 485 IPC. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question.

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMP-2019/2017]

¶16

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

¶17

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

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.

¶19

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 vehicle 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 registered owner of the vehicle.

¶25

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶26

Govind/

Sardar Singh v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sardar Singh v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Naved Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Heera Lal Verma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Yatendra Singh Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Harshita Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp