Allowed

Ramesh Meena v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC16 Apr 2018CRLMP/541/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking release of a seized tractor and trolley. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court directed the trial court to release the vehicle upon furnishing an indemnity bond and sureties, subject to conditions regarding its preservation and production for trial.

What did the court decide?

Release of the tractor and trolley upon execution of a Supurdaginama/indemnity bond by the petitioner and two sureties.

Ramesh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 541/2018

¶3

Ramesh Meena S/o Shri Kishori Meena B/c Meena, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Garai, P.s. Sapotara, Tehsil Karauli, Distt. Karauli (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brahm Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Dhakad PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶9

Order

¶10

16/04/2018

¶11

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 16.1.2018 passed by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Sapotara, District Karauli, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Tractor bearing Registration No. RJ 34 RA 9443 alongwith Trolley to the petitioner. It is further prayed that the order dated 22.1.2018 passed by revisional court be also set aside.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in bunch of petitions, lead case being D.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 60/2018, titled as Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan , a Division Bench of this Court on 6.4.2018, has held that if a vehicle has been seized under the Provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act’), for 72 hours competent Officer can retain the vehicle and thereafter,

¶13

(2 of 3)

¶14

[CRLMP-541/2018]

¶15

he is mandatorily required to report the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

¶17

that Division Bench has held as under:-

¶18

“In view of the above discussion, the referred questions are answered in the terms that once the Officer of the Mining Department, who seized the vehicle, has reported such seizure to his Superior Officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease to have the power to release the vehicle, and in that event, the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be empowered to release such vehicle, with or without the condition of deposit of compounding fee.”

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not willing to compound the offence, as he has decided to contest the case.

¶20

The orders passed by two courts below whereby release of the vehicle on Supurdagi was refused have been assailed.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the Tractor and Trolley and the same are case property of case FIR No.10/2018, registered at Police Station Sapotara, Karauli, for the offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 4/21 of MMDR Act.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

¶23

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10

¶24

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.

¶25

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 and

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CRLMP-541/2018]

¶28

trolley seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(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.

¶33

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

¶34

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶35

Mak/-

Ramesh Meena v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Meena 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

Jitendra@Jeetu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Anita Verma Vs Shri Naresh Pal Gangwar and Ors.

Kamlesh Chand Vs Shri Naresh Pal Gangwar and Ors.

Prem Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mukhtyar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Vikas Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.