Allowed

Tejpal S/O Ram Bharosi v. State of Rajasthan State

Rajasthan HC16 May 2024CRLR/693/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition challenging the rejection of an application for release of a seized vehicle. Relying on the principle that seized property should not be kept for long periods, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the release of the vehicle upon furnishing security.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; vehicle to be released on furnishing Supurdaginama of Rs. 50,000/- and surety.

Tejpal S/O Ram Bharosi Vs State of Rajasthan State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 693/2020

¶3

Tejpal S/o Ram Bharosi, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Kawai PS Nadbai District Bharatpur Raj

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan State, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RB Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

16/05/2024

¶12

The instant criminal revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 21.05.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Bharatpur by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for releasing the vehicle i.e. Motor Cycle Hero HF Delux bearing No.RJ-05-SY-2134 has been rejected. The petitioner claims himself as registered owner of the vehicle and his aforesaid vehicle has been seized by the Police in connection with FIR No.138/2020 registered with Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, which has been seized by the Police in connection with the aforesaid FIR. He submits that the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle in question, is the

¶14

[CRLR-693/2020]

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

person best entitled to get back the possession of the seized property. It is also submitted that there is no other person claiming supurdagi of the same. He further submits that the vehicle in question is presently stationed unused at the police station and soon it would become junk. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat , reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 .

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the criminal revision petition.

¶18

The purport of the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the power under Section 457 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously. The reason being that owner of the article should not suffer because of it remaining unused and the police should not be required to keep the article in safe custody. Apart from this, these seized vehicles which in a wider sense, are national property, would not be allowed to become junk day by day. It has been further laid down in the aforecited case law that while giving custody of the article, the article should be released on proper security.

¶19

Furthermore, in the aforecited precedent law, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the court should pass appropriate orders immediately and the articles should not be kept for a long time at the police station, and the procedure for disposal of the seized valuable articles,

¶20

[CRLR-693/2020]

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and narcotic drugs has been laid down therein.

¶23

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforecited case law, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.05.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Bharatpur is quashed and set aside and the learned court below is directed to release the vehicle in question bearing registration No.RJ-05-SY-2134 to the petitioner provided he furnishes a Supurdaginama of Rs. 50,000/- and surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to the court below that he shall not sell, transfer or alienate the vehicle in question without permission of the court and that he shall not use the vehicle for any illegal and unlawful purpose in future.

¶24

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶25

KuD/58

Tejpal S/O Ram Bharosi v. State of Rajasthan State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejpal S/O Ram Bharosi v. State of Rajasthan State

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

Radhey Shyam Vs State

Babli Devi W/O Pawan Kumar B/C Dhanka Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Badrinarayan Gehlot S/O Lt. Shri Bhanu Ram B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Koshindra Allias Sikandra and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Ramkesh S/O Motiram B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Arbab Khan @ Shanu S/O Amanatullah Khan Vs State of Rajasthan