Gujarat High Court
Amarsinh Pratapsinh Mangrola vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2023
Bench: Sandeep N. Bhatt
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11622/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 11622 of 2021
==========================================================
AMARSINH PRATAPSINH MANGROLA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
DARSHIT R BRAHMBHATT(8011) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 26/09/2023
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 seeking 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.
Bolero Maxxi Truck Plus bearing RTO Registration No. GJ-
22-U-1522 in connection with the FIR being II-C.R.No.20 of
2019 registered with Tarapur Police Station, for the offence
punishable under Sections 3, 11(d), 1(e), (1) (f) of the
Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, 1960 and under section
5(1)(a), 6 (a) and 8 (2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11622/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2023
undefined
Animals (Care and Maintenance of case property animals)
Rules, 2017.
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 even in instances under
section 98(2) of the amended Act and hence, the Court may
consider the case of the petitioner since this may fall under
section 99 of the Act. It was accordingly urged that this
Court may direct 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11622/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2023
undefined
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 the sides,
while determining the other issues raised by the learned APP
with reference to Mines Act and also 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11622/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2023
undefined
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 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 thro POA
Kalpeshbhai Bhagwanbhai Prajapati vs. State of Gujarat
order dated20.07.2020 passed in Special Criminal Application
No. 2896 of 2020.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11622/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2023
undefined
(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 muddamal vehicle was
meant for transfer of goods and further this offence was not
as per instructions of present petitioner to the driver,
considering the decision 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
30.07.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate, is set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11622/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2023
undefined
The authority concerned is directed to release the vehicle of
petitioner i.e. Bolero Maxxi Truck Plus bearing RTO
Registration No. GJ-22-U-1522 on the terms and conditions
that the petitioner:
(i) Shall furnish a solvent surety of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees ten Lakhs Only) or bank guarantee of the
amount mentioned in the seizure memo of the vehicle,
whichever is less;
(ii) 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,
(iii) Shall also file an undertaking to produce the
vehicle as an when directed by the trial Court,
(iv) 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.
(v) 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 shall be taken and a
detailed Panchnama in that regard, if not already drawn,
shall also be drawn for the purpose of trial.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11622/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2023
undefined
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.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
R.S. MALEK
