Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lootan Mehra vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 August, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLMP-5709/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5709/2021
Lootan Mehra S/o Shri Dholu Mehra, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village Pakilpar, Post Bihariganj, Police Station Bihariganj,
District Madepura, Bihar Presently Residing At Shere A Punjab
Hotel, Anoopgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar for
Mr. D.S. Thind.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhshek Purohit, AGA.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
02/08/2022
The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition
praying that the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Anoopgarh, District
Sriganganagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.266/2021 arising out of
FIR No.52/2021 P.S. Anoopgarh be set aside, whereby the said
Court refused to release the mobile phone alongwith SIM of the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial
court did not release the mobile phone because the investigation
is going on. It is informed by learned counsel for the parties that
now the challan has been filed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner states at Bar that no
confiscation proceedings are pending qua the mobile phone in-
(Downloaded on 03/08/2022 at 08:52:17 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5709/2021]
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 article should not be permitted to remain in the
police station as same 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 petitioners
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."
Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to refute the
above position.
(Downloaded on 03/08/2022 at 08:52:17 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5709/2021]
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case.
Thus, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and orders 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 revision petition is allowed
and the learned trial court is directed to release the mobile phone
in question i.e. (1) Vivo V-15 Pro bearing IMEI 1860913048979358
alongwith SIM to the petitioner on supardaginama on usual
conditions, which the trial court deems fit, provided he furnishes a
bank guarantee of Rs.10,000/- with the learned trial court.
Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the
petitioner is the owner of the mobile phone in question.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
23-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
