Allowed

Sikandar Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 May 2019CRLMP/2150/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the trial court to release the seized dumper vehicle as case property, subject to execution of an indemnity bond, surety bonds, and a reduced security deposit of Rs. 10,000, relying on precedents regarding the release of seized vehicles.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to release the seized vehicle subject to conditions including executing an indemnity bond, furnishing sureties, and depositing Rs. 10,000 as security.

Sikandar Khan Vs State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2150/2019

¶3

Sikandar Khan S/o Amru Khan, By Caste Muslim, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Bankali P.S. Sumerpur District Pali, Rajasthan

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pritam Joshi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mrs.Rajlaxmi Singh Choudhary, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶10

Order

¶11

27/05/2019

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrrate, Sumerpur, District Pali in Criminal Case No.820/2019 arising out of FIR No.132/2019 P.S. Sumerpur to the extent vide which the learned court below while releasing the vehicle in question has imposed the condition of furnishing Supardginama & surety in the sum of Rs.22,00,000/and depositing the compound amount i.e. Rs.1,64,100/.

¶13

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,

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMP-2150/2019]

¶16

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

¶17

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxman (supra) 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. The order passed by two court below be modified.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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 vehicle in question i.e.

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMP-2150/2019]

¶25

dumper (without number) Engine No.81E84485570 and Chasis No.MAT449053J5E15860 seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-

¶26

a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification. 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) That the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- as security before the trial Court.

¶29

(e) 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.

¶30

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

¶31

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶32

131-NK/-

Sikandar Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikandar Khan 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

Bhikha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jai Singh @ Virendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishal Singh Vs State

Narsa Ram and Ors. Vs the State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Abhishek Vs State of Rajasthan

Sheetal Kumar Vs Karishma Jain