Bajrang Lal Sharma S/O Kanhaiya ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2316 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2598/2020

Bajrang Lal Sharma S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, R/o Balaji Ka
Mandir, Bhojpurakala, Jobner, Phulera, Dist. Jaipur,
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

14/03/2022

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

praying therein that the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by Special

Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau be set aside, whereby the

said court refused to release seized vehicle i.e. Maruti Ritz V.D.I.

No. RJ14CQ1486 Chassis No. MA3FDEB1SOO404247, Engine

No.D13A1910784 to the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that

petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle in question.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that

no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle and the

same is case property of case FIR No.32/2019 registered under

Sections 7, 7A Of the Prevention Of Corruption (Amendment) Act,

2018 and 120-B of I.P.C.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-2598/2020]

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.

Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case

of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), present petition is

allowed and the trial court is directed to release the vehicle seized

as case property by imposing following conditions:-

a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released intact and

shall not change their identification.

b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when trial

court requires the same for proposed identification of the case

property.

c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/indemnity

bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial

court.

(d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other conditions

in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety bonds to be

furnished by the petitioner and sureties, which it may deem fit.

Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the

petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/15

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)