Bhaichand Bhai vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 9811 Raj

(1 of 3) [CRLMP-2934/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2934/2021

Bhaichand Bhai S/o Sh. Mohanlal, Aged About 50 Years, B/c Panchal, R/o G.i.d.c., Tulsi Apartment, Vapi, Dist. Valsad (Gujarat).

----Petitioner Versus State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tirath Raj Singh Sodha, on VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI (VACATION JUDGE)

Order

23/06/2021 In the wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, the

Court is functioning virtually and abundant caution is being

maintained for the safety of all concerned.

The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 16.01.2021

passed by learned Learned ADJ, No.1, Abu Road, District Sirohi, in

Criminal Revision Petition No.02/2021 (CIS No.02/2021) affirming

the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by learned ACJM, Mount Abu,

Camp Abu Road, District Sirohi, in Criminal Regular Case

No.354/2019 may kindly be set aside, whereby the said courts

below while rejecting the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

refused to release the vehicle Innova Car bearing registration

No.GJ-01-RM-0158 to the petitioner.

                                       (2 of 3)                    [CRLMP-2934/2021]


     The    said   vehicle     was     seized       in    connection    with   FIR

No.18/2018 registered at P.S. RIICO, Abu Road, District Sirohi.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's

vehicle was stolen on 05.10.2018, for which an FIR was lodged on

06.10.2018.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the stolen

vehicle was found involved in excise case on 17.10.2018.

Counsel for the petitioner also submits that since there was

an earlier FIR, therefore, even Excise Act shall not apply for the

purpose of the present petitioner, being owner of the vehicle in-

question.

Learned P.P. opposed the Misc. Petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that

no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle in

question and the same is case property. 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), the present misc. petition is

allowed and the trial court is directed to release the vehicle Innova

Car bearing registration No.GJ-01-RM-0158 on supardaginama in

favour of petitioner on usual conditions, which the trial court

deems fit, provided he furnishes a bank guarantee of

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2934/2021]

Rs.5,00,000/- with the trial court.

Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the

petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),VJ.

44-Sanjay/jitender/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)