Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 798 (RAJ)

Ramjilal v. State

1985-12-02

BHATNAGAR

body1985
JUDGMENT 1. - Notice to the State of Rajasthan was issued at the admission of stage. Mr. S. K. Mathur has put in appearance on behalf of non-petitioner State. 2. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition u/s 482 Cr. P. C. has been heard for final disposal today. 3. The Tractor to which the present petition relates is said to have been used by the assailants while firing the shot. The case relates to June 15, 1985. Since then the tractor is in custody of the police. The Court had sought report from the police. On October 11, 1985 the Investigating Officer has reported that the tractor is not required in investigation and may be given on `superdginama'. It has also been mentioned that the police has collected material which was required for the case. 4. In this view of the matter there is force in the contention of Mr. R N. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the tractor lying idle m police custody will be damaged and the owner petitioner would be deprived of its use for cultivation purposes. The only argument advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor is that the tractor may be required for investigation purposes. The above referred report of the police is an answer to this contention. 5. In such circumstances, the petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. is allowed and the order dated October 18, 1985 and October 31, 1985 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hanumangarh, rejecting the petitioners application for entrustment of the Tractor to him are set aside and it is ordered that the Tractor in question may be entrusted to petitioner Ramjilal. Hence the Tractor bearing No. PAF 4780 having Engine No. 3670158 of, 35 Horse Power may be entrusted to petitioner Ramjilal on his furnishing a bond for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to produce the Tractor in that Court or in any other Court as and when required with a condition that in case he fails to do so, the amount of personal bond and surety bond would be liable to be forfeited.Application allowed. *******