Petitioner sought release of seized mobile phone and two vehicles. Court denied request for phone citing trial evidence needs. Vehicle release remanded to trial court for fresh decision citing precedents.
Request for mobile phone release denied; plea for vehicle release remanded to trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:21130]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 511/2024
Birbal S/o Harphul, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No 5 Chak No 8 Sdb Ravla Mandi Anupgarh District Anupgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Moti Singh |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mohd Javed Gauri,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
10/05/2024
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
289-divya/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the mobile phone seized by the police should be released to the petitioner.
Whether the plea for release of two seized vehicles should be decided by this Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of GujaratApplied¶13
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 · Who else cites this
Sainaba Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr.Applied¶13
Sainaba Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 2005/2022
Birbal S/o Harphul
State Of Rajasthan
KULDEEP MATHUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
