Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Sunderbha1 Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2002
10) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of
the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matters of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and Multani
Hanifbhai Kalubhai (supra), the instant petition is allowed and
the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Court below is hereby
set-aside. The seized three mobile phones i.e. Oppo Reno 05 Pro,
Nokia 2660 and Samsung S22 Ultra 05G are directed to be
5
released and handed over to the petitioner on Supurdnama after
due verification of the documents concerning ownership and
execution of bonds with sureties.
Section 451 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil vs State Of Mysore And Anr. on 19 April, 1977
In Basavva Kom Dyanmangouda
Patil v. State of Mysore and Anr., [1977] 4 SCC 358, this
Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not
available for being returned to the complainant. In that case,
the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police
station and later it was found missing, the question was with
regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court
observed as under-
Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 1 February, 2013
10) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of
the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matters of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and Multani
Hanifbhai Kalubhai (supra), the instant petition is allowed and
the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Court below is hereby
set-aside. The seized three mobile phones i.e. Oppo Reno 05 Pro,
Nokia 2660 and Samsung S22 Ultra 05G are directed to be
5
released and handed over to the petitioner on Supurdnama after
due verification of the documents concerning ownership and
execution of bonds with sureties.
Jyoti Pratap Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 April, 2017
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1374 of 2020 in the case of
Tikeshwar Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh decided on 11.12.2020,
Cr.M.P. No.524 of 2017 in the case of Jyoti Pratap Singh Vs. State
of Chhattisgarh and another decided on 25.04.2017 and Cr.M.P.
No.562 of 2016 in the case of Sonelal Patel Vs. State of C.G. and
others decided on 07.07.2016 as well as the Hon'ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh in the case of Rocky Verma (died) thr.
Section 36 in Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 [Entire Act]
Tikeshwar Singh @ Bittu Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 February, 2022
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1374 of 2020 in the case of
Tikeshwar Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh decided on 11.12.2020,
Cr.M.P. No.524 of 2017 in the case of Jyoti Pratap Singh Vs. State
of Chhattisgarh and another decided on 25.04.2017 and Cr.M.P.
No.562 of 2016 in the case of Sonelal Patel Vs. State of C.G. and
others decided on 07.07.2016 as well as the Hon'ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh in the case of Rocky Verma (died) thr.
Rocky Verma (Deid) Thr. His Legal Wife ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2021
his legal
Wife Smt. Juli Verma Vs. State of M.P. decided on 24.02.2021 have
released the vehicle on Supurdnama and this case is squarely
covered by the aforesaid decisions passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
1