Wednesday, 03, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ripubhai Nathubhai Baraiya vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 2558 Guj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2558 Guj
Judgement Date : 28 March, 2023

Gujarat High Court
Ripubhai Nathubhai Baraiya vs State Of Gujarat on 28 March, 2023
Bench: Samir J. Dave
     R/SCR.A/10613/2022                                 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 10613 of 2022

==========================================================
                          RIPUBHAI NATHUBHAI BARAIYA
                                     Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DWIJEN S PANDYA(10887) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK H DAVE(6295) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE

                                Date : 28/03/2023

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of

rule for and on behalf of respondent - State.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition to

invoke inherent jurisdiction vested under Articles

226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and read

with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

to release the muddamal vehicle i.e. MAHINDRA SUPRO

MINI TRUCK bearing RTO Registration No.GJ-20-X-0921

in connection with the FIR being

CR.No.11207079220138 of 2022 registered with Halol

Rural Police Station, District- Panchmahal for the

R/SCR.A/10613/2022 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2023

offence punishable under Sections 11(1)(a), 11(1)

(d), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(h), 11(1)(k) of the Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals Act and under sections 5(1),

5(1)(1A), 6A(1), 6A(3), 6A(4), 8(4) of the Gujarat

animal Preservation Act and under sections 96 and

98 of the Transportation of Animals Rules.

3. Heard learned advocates for the parties

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has

submitted that the muddamal vehicle has been

detained by the investigating officer and that if

the interim custody of the vehicle is not given,

serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner

as the muddamal vehicle would get substantially

damaged by the time trial gets concluded and

probably by that time the value of the muddamal

vehicle may also become 'Nil' as the vehicle is

lying under the open sky in different climatic

conditions. It was further submitted that this

Court has ordered release of muddamal vehicles. It

was accordingly urged that this Court may direct

R/SCR.A/10613/2022 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2023

release of the muddamal vehicle in exercise of the

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India on suitable terms and

conditions.

5. It is also contended that as per various

judgments of this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court in

case of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of

Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and in case of

Smt. Basava Kom Dyaman Gauda Patil Vs. State of

Mysore reported in (1977) 4 SCC 358, wherein the

captioned mudamal has been released.

6. Per contra, learned APP has heavily opposed

and placed reliance upon the judgment dated

18.12.2017 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in case of Jhala Ghanshyamsingh Mobatsingh

vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal

Application No. 9745 of 2017. Learned APP further

contended that the order passed by the learned

trial Court is just and proper.

7. Having heard the arguments advanced by both

R/SCR.A/10613/2022 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2023

the sides, while determining the other issues

raised by the learned APP with reference to

judgments of this Court and judgment dated

18.12.2017 in case of Jhala Ghanshyamsingh

Mobatsingh vs. State of Gujarat and other

provisions of the said Act and referring to that

and the issues to be determined in future in

appropriate proceedings being contentious issue,

this Court is not inclined to enter into that arena

in the present matter and instead exercised powers

vested under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India.

8. This Court has also assistance of judgments

and orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court, which are as under:

(a) In case of Vipul Roshan Kumar Shah vs.

State of Gujarat order dated 15.06.2020

passed in Special Criminal Application No.

6957 of 2019.

(b) In case of Saramanbhai Devsibhai Barad

R/SCR.A/10613/2022 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2023

vs. State of Gujarat order dated 10.06.2020

passed in Special Criminal Application No.

8601 of 2019.

(c) In case of Mahesh Mansukhbhai Dholaria

vs. State of Gujarat order dated 19.08.2019

passed in Special Criminal Application No.

7806 of 2019.

(d) In case of Anirrudhsinh Pravinsinh Jadeja

vs. State of Gujarat order dated 10.08.2018

passed in Special Criminal Application No.

6039 of 2018.

(e) In case of Dilipbhai Ramanbhai Chaudhari

(Legal Heirs of Late Ramanbhai Chaudhari) vs.

State of Gujarat order dated 14.08.2020

passed in Special Criminal Application No.

3387 of 2020.

(f) In case of Smitaben Kalpeshbhai Chaudhary

vs. State of Gujarat order dated 20.07.2020

passed in Special Criminal Application No.

2851 of 2020.

(g) In case of Jignasha Kalpeshbhai Prajapati

R/SCR.A/10613/2022 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2023

thro POA Kalpeshbhai Bhagwanbhai Prajapati

vs. State of Gujarat order dated20.07.2020

passed in Special Criminal Application No.

2896 of 2020.

(h) In case of Devabhai Ranchhodbhai Ahir vs.

State of Gujarat order dated 20.07.2020

passed in Special Criminal Application No.

2853 of 2020.

(i) In case of Vipul Roshan Kumar Shah vs.

State of Gujarat order dated 15.06.2020

passed in Special Criminal Application No.

6957 of 2019.

(j) In case of Vipul Roshan Kumar Shah vs.

State of Gujarat order dated 22.07.2020

passed in Special Criminal Application No.

7143 of 2019

9. This Court notices that the said muddmal

vehicle was meant for transfer and further this

offence was not as per instructions of present

petitioner to the driver, considering the decision

R/SCR.A/10613/2022 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2023

of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat

(Supra), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court lamented

scenario that vehicle having unattended and

becoming junk within the premises of Police

Station, further the captioned muddamal vehicle was

used by employee of the petitioner and petitioner

is suffering from many months, therefore, bearing

in mind all such facts and circumstances, the

petitioner has to be given back his muddamal

vehicle with few conditions.

10. Resultantly, this petition is allowed, and the

order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol and the

order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the learned 4th

Additional Sessions Judge, Halol are set aside. The

authority concerned is directed to release the

vehicle of petitioner, MAHINDRA SUPRO MINI TRUCK

bearing RTO Registration No.GJ-20-X-0921 in the

terms and conditions that the petitioner:

1. shall furnish a solvent surety of the

R/SCR.A/10613/2022 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2023

amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle

in question as per the value disclosed in the

seizure memo or panchnama.

2. Shall file an undertaking before the trial

Court that prior to alienation or transfer in

any mode or manner, prior permission of the

concerned Court shall be taken till

conclusion of the trial,

3. Shall also file an undertaking to produce

the vehicle as an when directed by the trial

Court

4. If the I.O. finds use of vehicle in such

anti-social, illegal activity by the present

petitioner then this order shall stand cancel

and the vehicle will be seized.

5. The trial Court shall verify the ownership

of the vehicle before releasing the same.

11. Before handing over the possession of the

vehicle to the petitioner, necessary photographs

R/SCR.A/10613/2022 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2023

shall be taken and a detailed Panchnama in that

regard, if not already drawn, shall also be drawn

for the purpose of trial.

12. If, the I.O. finds it necessary, Videography

of the vehicle also shall be done. Expenses towards

the photographs and the videography shall be BORNE

by the petitioner. Rule is made absolute. Direct

Service is permitted.

(SAMIR J. DAVE,J) MEHUL B. TUVAR

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter