Ramsingh Meena Son Of Maganlal ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2463 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1665/2022

Ramsingh Meena Son Of Maganlal Meena, Resident Of 76/196
Rhb Pratap Nagar Sanganer Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney
Holder- Ramotar Meena Son Of Manganlal Resident Of Kanji
Kundali No. 1, Morpa, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur
Raj.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2.       S.H.O Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur
         (Raj).
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Malkhan Chaturvedi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deshraj Gosingha, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

22/03/2022

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

praying therein that the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by

learned Session Judge, Sawaimadhopur as well as the order dated

29.12.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur,

whereby the said courts refused to release Car Toyota Registration

No. RJ-14-TE-5851 to the petitioner on Supurdgi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a

power of attorney holder of the vehicle in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

presently vehicle in question is lying in Police Station and condition

of the vehicle be rusted day by day. No purpose will be fulfilled to

keep the vehicle in police station. Whenever court's order to

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-1665/2022]

produce the vehicle, he would produce the vehicle before the

Court, So, the vehicle in question be released on supurdagi.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

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.

Stay application also stands disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /49

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)