HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1665/2022
Ramsingh Meena Son Of Maganlal Meena, Resident Of 76/196
Rhb Pratap Nagar Sanganer Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney
Holder- Ramotar Meena Son Of Manganlal Resident Of Kanji
Kundali No. 1, Morpa, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur
Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. S.H.O Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur
(Raj).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Malkhan Chaturvedi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deshraj Gosingha, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 22/03/2022 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein that the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by learned Session Judge, Sawaimadhopur as well as the order dated 29.12.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, whereby the said courts refused to release Car Toyota Registration No. RJ-14-TE-5851 to the petitioner on Supurdgi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a power of attorney holder of the vehicle in question.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that presently vehicle in question is lying in Police Station and condition of the vehicle be rusted day by day. No purpose will be fulfilled to keep the vehicle in police station. Whenever court's order to (Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 09:00:06 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1665/2022] produce the vehicle, he would produce the vehicle before the Court, So, the vehicle in question be released on supurdagi.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (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.
Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the vehicle seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-
a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change their identification.
b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.
c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.
(d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other conditions in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and sureties, which it may deem fit.
Stay application also stands disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /49 (Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 09:00:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)