Allowed

Shambhu Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC1 May 2018CRLMP/2407/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order, under Section 482 CrPC, allows a bail petition seeking release of a motorcycle seized as case property in an NDPS case. The learned Justice relied on Supreme Court precedent to direct the trial court to release the vehicle subject to conditions regarding indemnity, surety, and verification of ownership.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; trial court directed to release seized motorcycle subject to indemnity bond, sureties, and identification conditions.

Shambhu Singh 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 Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2407/2018

¶3

Shambhu Singh S/o Hindu Singh B/c Sodhiya Rajput, R/o Guradiya Joga, Police Station Mishroli, Distt. Jhalawar (Raj.) (Registered Owner Of The Vehicle)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP for State

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶9

Order

¶10

01/05/2018

¶11

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 11.4.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Motorcycle No.RJ17-SP8543, to the petitioner.

¶12

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.65/2018, registered at Police Station Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar, for offences under Sections 8/21, 8/29 and 8/25, NDPS Act.

¶13

Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, 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.

¶14

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMP-2407/2018]

¶17

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.

¶18

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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶25

Govind/

Shambhu Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhu Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarita Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Sunita Sharma Vs Manoj Sharma

Moolchand Mali Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Devendra Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Babulal Jangid Vs Gopal Lal Jangid

Smt Gyarsi Bai Vs State of Raj and Ors.