CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Krishna Veer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 22 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 RAJ CK 0168

HON’BLE JUDGES
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 397 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 379 · Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 — Section 3 · Petroleum and Mineral Pipeline Act, 1962 — Section 15
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1292 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 326 words

The present petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 10.04.2019 passed by Learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S.

Act, Cases, Jhalawar (Raj.), be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release of Tanker vehicle No.UP-85-P-9271 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.95/2014 registered at Police Station Sadar, Jhalawar, for the offence under Section 379 IPC, Section 3 PDPP Act and Section 15

Petroleum and Mineral Pipeline Act, 1962.

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.

Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle.