Allowed

Sonveer Son of Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2022CRLW/145/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges orders refusing release of an impounded vehicle. The Court held that since confiscation proceedings were not initiated, continued detention serves no purpose and risked damage. It directed the release of the vehicle upon verification of documents, furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 3 lakh, and providing two sureties. The impugned orders were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders were quashed, and it was directed that the petitioner's vehicle be released upon verification of ownership documents and furnishing of a bank guarantee of Rs. 3 lakh with two suret

Sonveer Son of Jagdish Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 145/2022

¶3

Sonveer Son Of Jagdish Prasad, Resident Of Mandi Mirjakha, Police Station Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra (U.P.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Superintendent Of Police, Bharatpur, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj)

¶7

District Collector, Bharatpur (Raj)

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr. Sarthak Saxena for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Dy. GA

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

¶11

Order

¶12

04/08/2022

¶13

The Pick Up of the petitioner bearing registration No. UP-80FT-4654 was seized by the Police in connection with FIR No.497/2021 registered at Police Station, Nagar, DistrictBharatpur for offences under Sections 5, 6 & 8 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995. The seizure was made on 04.10.2021. The petitioner approached before the Collector (competent authority) for release of the vehicle under Section 6-A of the Act.

¶14

The prayer has been refused by the Collector, thereafter, appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of the Division,

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLW-145/2022]

¶17

who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21.12.2021 passed in appeal No.110/2021.

¶18

Though, there is provision for confiscation of vehicle under Section 6-A, however, the Competent Authority does not appear to have initiated any proceeding for confiscating of the vehicle.

¶19

In the circumstance, no further purpose is going to be served by continued detention of the said vehicle by the police, it would rather cause damage to the said vehicle, if it is not released.

¶20

It is directed that the vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner after verification of ownership document and on furnishing of Bank guarantee of Rs.3 lakh along with two sureties of the like amount.

¶21

In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned orders are, hereby, quashed and the petition stands allowed.

¶22

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶23

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶24

Sunita/Charu/80

Sonveer Son of Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonveer Son of Jagdish Prasad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satya Narain Vs State

Naresh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Kishanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Hamid Hussain Son of Shri Ismail Vs State of Rajasthan

Neha Jain D/O Late Shri Ashok Kumar Jain Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ashok Meena Son of Shri Narsi Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Pankaj Sharma Son of Shri Omkar Nath Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan