Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhagwat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 June, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLR-168/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 168/2022
Bhagwat Singh S/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
Khamkimadadi, Teh. Malvi Dist. Udaipur At Present Chitrakut
Nagar, Udaipur Through Power Of Attorney Holder Haji
Mohammed S/o Mohammed Yusuf Musalman, R/o 586, North
Ayad, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
28/06/2022
The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition
praying that the impugned order dated 02.09.2021 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in
Criminal Revision No.12/2021, be set aside, whereby the learned
court rejected the application filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The
vehicle was seized in connection with FIR No.60/2017 registered
at P.S. Raas, for the offence under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle in
question could not be released because there was an earlier order
releasing the vehicle in favour of finance company i.e. Equitas
Small Finance Bank Limited, which was passed by the learned
court below.
(Downloaded on 29/06/2022 at 08:20:57 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-168/2022]
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
financial company is not interested in getting the vehicle released,
therefore, after settling the account with the finance company
submitted no dues along with application for release of the
vehicle. Learned counsel also submits that learned courts below
have refused to interfere on the ground that the earlier order
regarding releasing of vehicle in favour of finance company is
already in existence.
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 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
(Downloaded on 29/06/2022 at 08:20:57 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-168/2022]
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 PP is not in a position to refute the above position.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case.
This Court is of the view that the learned courts below ought
not to have gone into the technicalities, rather the vehicle should
have been released, if the petitioner was having a valid NOC from
the Finance Bank Limited. The ownership and other facts are not
disputed.
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 revision
petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the
vehicle-Trailer bearing registration No. RJ-27-GB-0824 on
(Downloaded on 29/06/2022 at 08:20:57 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-168/2022]
supardaginama in favour of petitioner on usual conditions, which
the trial court deems fit, provided he furnishes a bank guarantee
of Rs.12,00,000/- before the trial court.
Learned court shall ensure that the petitioner has a valid
NOC from the finance company i.e. Equitas Small Finance Bank
Limited before releasing the said vehicle.
Needless to say, learned trial court shall make verification
that the petitioner is a registered owner of the said vehicle.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
81-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
