Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagannath vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 March, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1045/2021
Jagannath S/o Hiralal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Dhava, P.s.
Vallabhnagar, Dist. Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
29/03/2022
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 revision petition praying
that the order dated 10.11.2021 passed by learned Special Judge,
NDPS Act Cases, Balotra in Misc. Case No.15/2021 (CNR:
RJBA010013052021) arising out of FIR No.148/2019 P.S. Balotra
be set aside, whereby the said Court refused to release the mobile
phones alongwith SIM of the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner states at Bar that no
confiscation proceedings are pending qua the mobile phones in-
question and the same are 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
(Downloaded on 30/03/2022 at 08:40:28 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-1045/2021]
court has held that the article should not be permitted to remain
in the police station as same 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.
(Downloaded on 30/03/2022 at 08:40:28 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-1045/2021]
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case.
Thus, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and orders
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 learned trial court is directed to release
the mobile phones in question i.e. (1) Samsung Galaxy A9 Model
2018 SM-A925 bearing IMEI 353451100376407,
353452100376405 and (2) Samsung GT-E1200Y bearing IMEI
353568093725587 alongwith SIM to the petitioner on
supardaginama on usual conditions, which the trial court deems
fit, provided he furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs.10,000/- with
the learned trial court.
Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the
petitioners are the owner of the mobile phones in question.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
44-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
