Allowed

Harpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Jun 2019CRLMP/1746/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case involves a criminal misc. petition where the petitioner sought to set aside an order refusing to release a seized truck. The High Court relied on a Supreme Court judgment stipulating that case property should not remain rusted in police custody without gainful use and directed its release upon furnishing a bank guarantee.

What did the court decide?

The seizure order was set aside, the truck registration PB 02 DF 7565 was directed to be released to the petitioner, and he was required to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Harpal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1746/2019

¶3

Harpal Singh S/o Mangal Singh, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Chuhang, Dist. Amritsar, Punjab

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

		----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Pankaj Kumar Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Anish Bhurat, PP assisted by Ravindra Khichi

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY CHATURVEDI (VACATION JUDGE)

¶9

Order

¶10

12/06/2019

¶11

The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Ratangarh, Churu in Criminal Application No.04/2019, be set aside, whereby the said Court refused to release the vehicle Truck bearing registration No. PB 02 DF 7565 to the petitioner. The said vehicle was seized in connection with FIR No.38/2019 registered at P.S. Ratangarh for the offence under Sections 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle in question and the same is case property. 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

¶13

(2 of 2)

¶14

[CRLMP-1746/2019]

¶15

parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the above position.

¶17

Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the vehicle Truck bearing registration No. PB 02 DF 7565 on supardaginama in favour of the petitioner on usual conditions, which the trial court deems fit, provided he furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/- with the trial court.

¶18

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

¶19

(ABHAY CHATURVEDI (VACATION JUDGE)),J

¶20

94-Arvind/-

Harpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

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

Jagdish @ Pintu Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Chhoga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivnath Sarkar Vs State

Babu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Budhram Vs State of Rajasthan