Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1881 (RAJ)

Bhagwat Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-06-28

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition praying that the impugned order dated 02.09.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in Criminal Revision No. 12/2021, be set aside, whereby the learned court rejected the application filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The vehicle was seized in connection with FIR No. 60/2017 registered at P.S. Raas, for the offence under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle in question could not be released because there was an earlier order releasing the vehicle in favour of finance company i.e. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited, which was passed by the learned court below. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the financial company is not interested in getting the vehicle released, therefore, after settling the account with the finance company submitted no dues along with application for release of the vehicle. Learned counsel also submits that learned courts below have refused to interfere on the ground that the earlier order regarding releasing of vehicle in favour of finance company is already in existence. 4. 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 v. 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. 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." 5. Learned PP is not in a position to refute the above position. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 7. This Court is of the view that the learned courts below ought not to have gone into the technicalities, rather the vehicle should have been released, if the petitioner was having a valid NOC from the Finance Bank Limited. The ownership and other facts are not disputed. 8. 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 v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 439/2020) decided on 29.06.2020 and Amra v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. The ownership and other facts are not disputed. 8. 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 v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 439/2020) decided on 29.06.2020 and Amra v. 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 vehicle-Trailer bearing registration No. RJ-27-GB-0824 on supurdginama in favour of petitioner on usual conditions, which the trial court deems fit, provided he furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs. 12,00,000/- before the trial court. 9. Learned court shall ensure that the petitioner has a valid NOC from the finance company i.e. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited before releasing the said vehicle. 10. Needless to say, learned trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the said vehicle.