Allowed

Dheer Singh S/O Shri Chhajulal B/C Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Apr 2019CRLMP/2111/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan quashed an order refusing release of a seized tractor trolley. Relying on precedent, the Court directed the trial court to release the vehicle subject to specific conditions regarding identification, production, and an indemnity bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Trial Court directed to release seized tractor subject to conditions of maintaining identity, producing vehicle for trial, and executing indemnity bond with sureties.

Dheer Singh S/O Shri Chhajulal B/C Meena Vs State of… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2111/2019

¶3

Dheer Singh S/o Shri Chhajulal B/c Meena, R/o Lodha, Police Station Garhmora, District Karauli Banki, Bajna Kalan, Police Station (Owner Of Vehicle Tractor Bearing No.RJ-34-RB-1460 Along With Trolley Chassis No. MBNAAAJGLJJA 02192 Engine No. NJA2KAJ0267)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jiya Ur Rehman For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Chawla, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

22/04/2019

¶12

By this petition which has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is prayed that the order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Shri Mahaveer Ji, District Karauli be quashed and set aside, whereby the said Court refused to release Tractor bearing registration No.RJ-34-RB-1460 along with Trolley Chassis No. MBNAAAJGLJJA 02192 Engine No. NJA2KAJ0267 to the petitioner.

¶13

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.60/2018, titled as Laxman Vs. State of Rajasthan , decided on 06.04.2018, 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

¶14

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2111/2019]

¶15

retain the vehicle and thereafter, it is mandatory for him to report the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶16

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the tractor trolley in question and the same are the case property of FIR No.08/2019 registered at Police Station Garhmora, District Karauli, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 336, 342, 353, 319 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act and Section 4/21 of MMRD Act.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as the same shall remain gather rust and shall remain unuseful.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

The Division Bench of this Court in Laxman Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) , has held as under:-

¶20

“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 would be empowered to release such vehicle, with or without the condition of deposit of compounding fee.”

¶21

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, present petition is allowed and the Trial Court is

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLMP-2111/2019]

¶24

directed to release the tractor along with trolley seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶31

Mohit Rohila /71

Dheer Singh S/O Shri Chhajulal B/C Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheer Singh S/O Shri Chhajulal B/C Meena 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

Smt Prembai W/O Late Shri Chhitarmal Chhipa B/C Chhipa Vs State of Rajasthan

Irfan S/O Amir Khan B/C Mev Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Vasudev Tharani S/O Late Shri D.M. Tharani Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Yadav S/O Shri Panchu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilsukh S/O Shri Tikuram B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashish Kumar Sharma S/O Brijmohan Sharma B/C Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan