Allowed

Ishwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC17 Aug 2018CRLMP/2961/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the trial court to release a seized dumper truck to the petitioner, the registered owner, relying on Supreme Court precedent preventing vehicles from rusting in police custody, subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to release the seized vehicle to the petitioner subject to maintaining its integrity, producing it for identification, and executing an indemnity bond with sureties.

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2961/2018

Ishwar Singh

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, PP for State

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Order

¶11

18/08/2018

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, application for early listing, bearing inward No.1/01.08.2018, is accepted.

¶13

With the consent of learned Public Prosecutor, hearing of the case is preponed to today and S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2961/2018 is taken on board.

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 14.5.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwadi, District Alwar be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Dumper No.HR-38S-3616, to the petitioner.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle and the

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLMP-2961/2018]

¶18

same is case property of case FIR No.120/2013, registered at Police Station Chopanki, District Alwar for offences under Sections 279, 336, 379, 120B IPC and Sections 41, 42 of Forest Act. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question.

¶19

Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, 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.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

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.

¶22

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:-

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other conditions in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CRLMP-2961/2018]

¶29

bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and sureties, which it may

¶30

deem fit.

¶31

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

¶32

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶33

Govind/

Ishwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Mukesh Khandal S/O Late Mahaveer Prasad B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mukesh Jain S/O Shri Raghunath Singh B/C Jain and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp and Ors.

Sunita W/O Shri Nirmal Kumar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp