Allowed

Kuldeep Shamra Son of Sh. Shyam Sundar Sharma, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Sept 2024CRLMP/3120/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenged the trial court's order dismissing an application to return a seized tractor. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order, and directed the release of the vehicle subject to conditions of ownership verification, identification, and provision of surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order set aside; vehicle seized as case property released on supurdagi subject to conditions including ownership verification, undertaking against illegal use, and furnishing of surety bo

Kuldeep Shamra Son of Sh. Shyam Sundar Sharma, Vs State… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:39165]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3120/2023

¶4

Kuldeep Shamra Son Of Sh. Shyam Sundar Sharma, Residing Near Tel Factory, Baran, District Baran (Raj).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Nitesh Pareek
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.G.A.
	Mr.	Rohan Agarwal

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶11

Order

¶12

17/09/2024

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran in application No. 40/2023, whereby the trial court dismissed the petitioner’s application for releasing the vehicle tractor Registration No. RJ 28 RC 8616 Mahindra 275 on Supurdgi .

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings have been initiated qua the vehicle and the same is case property of FIR No. 284/2022 registered at Police Station Atru, District Baran for the offence under Sections 323, 302, 143 and 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. He further submits that there is no rival claimant of the

[2024:RJ-JP:39165]

[CRLMP-3120/2023]

(2 of 3)

vehicle in question. If the vehicle in question is not released in favour of the petitioner, it would be reduced into junk of nobody's use. He further submits that the rejection order has been passed by trial Court on flimsy ground, hence the vehicle in question is required to be released on supurdagi.

¶20

Learned Addl.G.A. has opposed the same.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal

¶23

Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 , 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.

¶24

Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) , present petition is allowed, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the trial court is directed to release the vehicle 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 furnish the photographs of the vehicle in question showing its number and colour etc.

¶28

d) At the time of release, the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the effect that the vehicle in question shall not be used for any illegal purpose and if so found, the petitioner shall be personally liable.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:39165]

[CRLMP-3120/2023]

e) That the petitioner shall execute a Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and shall also furnish two surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶33

Needless to say that before releasing the vehicle in question on Supurdagi, trial court shall ascertain the fact that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle in question and no confiscation proceedings have been initiated in relation to the vehicle in question.

¶34

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶35

Ritu/461

Kuldeep Shamra Son of Sh. Shyam Sundar Sharma, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Shamra Son of Sh. Shyam Sundar Sharma, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulab Devi Daughter of Shri Narayan Lal Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindra Rathore S/O Shri Magraj Rathore Vs the State of Rajasthan

Irshad Son of Rajjak Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaideep Mehta S/O Late Shri Pratap Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Baluram Choudhary S/O Kalyan Mal Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Neraj D/O Heeralal Kumawat, Vs State of Rajasthan