Allowed

Hanuman Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC13 Mar 2018CRLMP/887/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking release of a seized tractor and trolley. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court ordered the trial court to release the vehicle upon execution of an indemnity bond, guarantee of ownership verification, and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to release the seized tractor and trolley by the trial court upon depositing an indemnity bond and surety bonds.

Hanuman Singh 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 Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 887/2018

¶3

Hanuman Singh S/o Sh. Ramswaroop Meena, B/c Mina, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Mangrol, Tehsil Sapotara, Dist Karauli, Rajasthan

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ganesh Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Order

¶11

13/03/2018

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 8.1.2018 passed by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Sapotara, Karauli be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Tractor RJ 34 RA 8915 with Trolley to the petitioner along with the order dated 17.1.2018 passed by the revisional court.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the tractor trolley and the same is case property of case FIR No.302/2017, registered at Police Station Sapotara, for the offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 4/21 of MMDR Act.

¶14

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

¶16

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

¶17

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-887/2018]

¶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

Taking 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:-

¶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 a registered owner of the vehicle.

¶25

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶26

Mak/-

Hanuman Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman 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

Vidyadhar Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Hawa Singh Jakhad and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ramjeet Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mrignayani Jain Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Sunil Jain Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Chayanika Rajput Vs State of Raj and Ors.