Allowed

Babu v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC21 Mar 2018CRLMP/827/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a s.482 CrPC petition seeking release of a tractor and trolley seized as case property. Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court quashed the refusal to release the vehicle and directed its return under specific conditions including execution of a supurdaginama and furnishing sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; trial court directed to release tractor and trolley subject to conditions of maintenance, production for identification, and execution of supurdaginama with two sureties.

Babu 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 Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 827/2018

¶3

Babu S/o Parsadi B/c Malaha, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Malahapura Rancholi, Police Station Mandrayal, Tehsil Mandrayal, Distt. Karauli.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.K. Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶9

Order

¶10

21/03/2018

¶11

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 15.01.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Karauli(Raj.), be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Tractor No. RJ-34 RA-9529 alongwith Trolley to the petitioner. It is further prayed that the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by revisional court, be also set aside.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the tractor trolley and the same are case property of case FIR No.119/2017, registered at Police Station Mandrayal, Karauli, for the offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 29/50 and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act.

¶13

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

¶15

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

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMP-827/2018]

¶18

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 tractor and trolley seized as case property by imposing following conditions:a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle and trolley so released intact and shall not change their identification.

¶20

b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle and trolley 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 a registered owner of the vehicle.

¶24

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶25

Heena

Babu v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu 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

Saroj Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Gouri Shankar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Hemraj Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rameshwar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Kamal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs Ms Rekha Gupta