Allowed

Vakil v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2022CRLR/35/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition seeking interim custody of a Bolero Pick-Up vehicle. It set aside the trial court's order and directed the release of the vehicle to the petitioner, who held a power of attorney and an agreement to sale, to prevent value diminution while ensuring a bond is furnished.

What did the court decide?

Bolero Pick-Up car bearing registration No.RJ-21-GC-5066 ordered to be released on 'supurdagi' in favour of petitioner till completion of trial subject to furnishing bond and undertaking conditions.

Vakil Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 35/2022

¶3

Vakil S/o Shri Fardeen Khan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Near Kabristan, Hindalgol, Tehsil Bap, District Jodhpur. Power Of Attorney Holder Of Registered Owner Of The Vehicle Shri Panduram S/o Shri Sardarram Bhat, R/o Savaragaon, Tehsil Bap, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶10

Judgment

¶11

18/01/2022

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 25.11.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Electricity Cases, Jaisalmer in Criminal Case No.132/2021 pertaining to FIR No.121/2021 registered at Police Station Sangar, District Jaisalmer for the offences under Sections 136 and 139 of the Electricity Act, whereby the prayer to release the seized Bolero Pick-Up No.RJ-21GC-5066 on supurdaginama in favour of the petitioner, has been rejected.

¶13

As per prosecution story, the offending vehicle was used for electricity theft. After investigation, the police found that one Pandu Ram was owner of the said vehicle and there is an

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CRLR-35/2022]

¶16

agreement to sale dated 23.10.2021 between the petitioner and said Pandu Ram for selling the said car to the petitioner.

¶17

The trial court has rejected the application filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking interim custody of the subject vehicle on the ground of not submitting the application by the registered owner of the car.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well the order impugned.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for interim custody of the subject vehicle submits that there is an agreement to sale dated 23.10.2021 whereby one Pandu Ram sold out the said car to the petitioner, and therefore, he is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered n the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (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.

¶20

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the order impugned passed by the trial court, prays for rejection of the revision petition.

¶21

Having heard the rival submissions and perusal of the record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the interim custody of the vehicle alleged to be used in committing the offence of theft of electricity cannot be denied on the ground that the owner of the vehicle has not preferred the application specially when there was agreement to sale between the petitioner and Pandu Ram, the owner of the car. It is also settled legal proposition of law that

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CRLR-35/2022]

¶24

interim custody of the vehicle cannot be denied on the ground that it is liable to be confiscated, in case the offence is proved against the accused. As per prosecution story, the vehicle was found in possession of the petitioner and there is an agreement to sale of the said car in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

Keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (supra), there is no reason to deny interim custody of the vehicle to the owner or person entitled to get possession of the vehicle. If the vehicle is allowed to be kept in the police station for an indefinite period, then value of the vehicle shall be diminished substantially and it may not remain in usable condition. In the above circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

¶26

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.11.2021 passed by learned trial court is set aside and Bolero Pick-UP car bearing registration No.RJ-21-GC-5066is ordered to be released on ‘supurdagi’ in favour of the petitioner till completion of the trial on the following conditions:-

¶27

(a) the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 3,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to produce the vehicle aforesaid in the Court as and when required to do so.

¶28

(b) the petitioner shall get the vehicle aforesaid photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case.

¶29

(c) the personal bond of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and his sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photographs of persons identifying them before the Court, which is with full residential

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[CRLR-35/2022]

¶32

particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them.

¶33

(d) the petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle aforesaid and not to lease it to anyone and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable.

¶34

(e) the petitioner will not allow the vehicle aforesaid to be used for any antisocial activities.

¶35

(f) before releasing the vehicle the trial court shall verify the original documents of the vehicle.

¶36

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶37

29-CPGoyal/-

Vakil v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakil 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

Nagesh Dadhich Vs State

Ajarudeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Gurdeep Singh Vs State

Vakil Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohanlal Godara Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan