Allowed

Ranjeet @ Narayan v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC9 Jul 2018CRLMP/2637/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Rajasthan allowed the release of a seized tractor and trolley to the petitioner, imposing conditions regarding maintenance, identification, and execution of an indemnity bond.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; trial court directed to release seized tractor and trolley subject to conditions of maintenance, identification, and indemnity bond execution.

Ranjeet @ Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2637/2018

Ranjeet @ Narayan

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP for State

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Order

¶11

09/07/2018

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 22.3.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, District Tonk, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Tractor No.RJ26-RB3189 alongwith Trolley, to the petitioner, alongwith order dated 24.4.2018 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.76/62, registered at Forest Officer, Niwal, District Tonk, for offences under Sections 26, 41, 42, 52 of Forest Act. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question.

¶14

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.

¶15

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

[CRLMP-2637/2018]

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶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/

Ranjeet @ Narayan v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet @ Narayan 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

Tulsi Ram Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Uday Pathak Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rahul Chaturvedi Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Pradeep Dixit Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Kajod Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ramshay Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.