Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ratan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLAS-309/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 309/2022
Ratan Lal S/o Tej Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Rolaheda,
Tehsil And District Chittorgarh.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
13/04/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
The appellant has preferred this criminal revision petition
praying that the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 passed by
learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Chittorgarh in Criminal Misc.
Case No.11/2022, be set aside, whereby the learned court has
rejected the application filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The vehicle
was seized in connection with FIR No.309/2021 registered at P.S.
Sadar, District Chittorgarh.
The learned counsel for the appellant states at Bar that no
confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle in-question
and the same is case property. The learned counsel for the
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 08:42:53 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLAS-309/2022]
appellant 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. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai (Supra) has
held as under:-
"15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the
State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police
station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and
vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that
appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrate who
are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to
its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are
seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the
return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any
point of time.
16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the
person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a
matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by
the concerned persons.
17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to
keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long
period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders
immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as
well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at
any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of
applications for return of such vehicles.
18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused,
owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then
such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If
the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then
insurance company be informed by the Court to take
possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or
a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession
the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The
Court would pass such order within a period of six months
from the date of production of the said vehicle before the
Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such
vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should
be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 08:42:53 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLAS-309/2022]
Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to refute the
above position.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case.
Thus, relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and order passed by
this Court in Pannaram Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal
Revision Petition No.439/2020) decided on 29.06.2020 and Amra
Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No.1657/2020)
decided on 04.09.2020, the present criminal appeal is allowed and
the trial court is directed to release the Maruti Brezza Car bearing
registration No. RJ09-CB-8030 on supardaginama in favour of
appellant on usual conditions, which the trial court deems fit,
provided he furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- before
the trial court.
Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the
appellant is a registered owner of the said vehicle.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
8-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
