Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Yogesh Shakya - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 291 of 2019
Decided On : 11-01-2019
Mr. Javed Mohd. Khan, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, PP, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is that the court has the discretion to release seized property, such as a vehicle, based on ownership claims and relevant legal provisions.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Release of Seized Vehicle - The court allowed the petition and directed the trial court to release the seized vehicle as case property, imposing certain conditions, based on the interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the release of a seized Maruti Omni Car, which was refused by the Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and directed the trial court to release the seized vehicle, imposing specific conditions.
Issues: The issue was whether the seized vehicle should be released to the petitioner, who claimed to be the registered owner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, which held that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station and should be released, considering the petitioner's ownership.
Final Decision: The court directed the trial court to release the seized vehicle as case property, imposing conditions related to the maintenance and production of the vehicle.
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 praying that the order dated 24.12.2018 passed by Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act, Chhabra District Baran, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Maruti Omni Car bearing registration No. MP-07-BA-4470 to the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle in question.
3. 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. 287/2018 registered at Police Station Chhipabarod, District Baran, for the offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. 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.
6. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder bhai 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.
7. Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle.
