Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dhulilal vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 March, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-482/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 482/2021
Dhulilal S/o Kesulal, Aged About 42 Years, Neemuch Mata Mandir
Tejawat Nagar, Dewali, Tehsil Badgaon, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Sahlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
24/03/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition
praying that the impugned order dated 21.05.2021 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Criminal Misc. Case No.(CIS
No.) 118/2021, be set aside, whereby the learned court rejected
the application filed under Section 451-457 Cr.P.C. The vehicle was
seized in connection with FIR No.10/2021 registered at P.S.
Gogunda, District Udaipur, for the offence under Sections 302/34
& 404 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
investigation is complete and charge-sheet in this case has
already been filed.
(Downloaded on 24/03/2022 at 08:32:15 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-482/2021]
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
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
(Downloaded on 24/03/2022 at 08:32:15 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-482/2021]
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.
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
Tempo bearing registration No. RJ-27-PB-1297 on supardaginama
in favour of petitioner on usual conditions, which the trial court
deems fit, provided he furnishes a bank guarantee of
Rs.2,50,000/- 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.
146-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
