Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyanarayan vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8295/2022
Satyanarayan S/o Shri Idan, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Near
Teliwada School Bikaner Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
01/12/2022
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred for quashing of order dated 17.11.2022 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bikaner, whereby the
learned trial court has dismissed the application, moved by the
petitioner, under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Case
No.301/2022 arising out of the FIR No.403/2021 P.S. Naya
Shahar, Bikaner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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
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
(Downloaded on 03/12/2022 at 11:24:24 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-8295/2022]
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."
3. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to refute the
above position.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case.
5. Thus, relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and order passed by this
(Downloaded on 03/12/2022 at 11:24:24 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-8295/2022]
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 petition is allowed and the trial court is
directed to release Hero Splendor iSmart 110 bearing registration
No.RJ07-AS-3367 on supardaginama in favour of petitioner on usual
conditions, which the trial court deems fit, provided he furnishes a
bank guarantee of Rs.35,000/- before the trial court. Needless to
say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a
registered owner of the said vehicle.
6. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
266-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
