Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajshiv Yogi vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 December, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4292/2022
Rajshiv Yogi S/o Sh. Syam Lal Yogi, Aged About 33 Years, 37
Vaishali Nagar, Near Jain College, Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anda Ram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
12/12/2022
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred assailing the order dated 06.03.2021 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in Criminal
Revision No.06/2021 whereby the learned revisional court has
dismissed the revision petition and confirm the order dated
30.01.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Sriganganagar in FIR No.235/2019, Police Station Purani Abadi,
District Sriganganagar, who whereby rejected the application
under Section 451 Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioner.
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
(Downloaded on 14/12/2022 at 12:05:15 AM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-4292/2022]
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 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.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
(Downloaded on 14/12/2022 at 12:05:15 AM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4292/2022]
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 02.08.2021, the present petition is disposed of and the
trial court is directed to release the motorcycle bearing
registration No. RJ13-SY-1565 on supardaginama in favour of
petitioner on usual conditions, which the trial court deems fit,
provided he furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs.70,000/- before the
trial court.
Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the
petitioner is a registered owner of the said vehicle.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
61-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
