IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAHUL JAIN, LD. M.

M-08 , NEW
DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF :
STATE
VERSUS
BHOOP SINGH YADAV
DD NO: 67A & 13A
DT. 15.06.2023
P.S: DELHI CANTT
U/S: 66 (1)(b) DP ACT

INDEX

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION

1.
451/457 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR RELEASE OF
TWO BUSES BEARING REGISTRATION
NO. AR-06-C-7031 AND AR-06-B-7301
ON SUPERDARI TO THE APPLICANT
NAMELY BHOOP SINGH YADAV..

2. VAKALATNAMA

APPLICANT

Through
 COUNSELS FOR THE APPLICANT
NITIN GUPTA/ SAHIL CHOPRA
(D/379/2004)/ (D/1538/2010)
THE LAW CHAMBERS
F-31, FIRST FLOOR
CONNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI-110001
Mob. No. 9811369652/9654440009
Email Id: [email protected]
[email protected]
Filed On: ___ January 2024
Place: New Delhi
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAHUL JAIN, LD. M.M-08 , NEW
DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF :
STATE
VERSUS
BHOOP SINGH YADAV
DD NO: 67A & 13A
DT. 15.06.2023
P.S: DELHI CANTT
U/S: 66 (1)(b) DP ACT
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 451/457 OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR RELEASE OF TWO
BUSES BEARING REGISTRATION NO. AR-06-C-7031 AND
AR-06-B-7301 ON SUPERDARI TO THE APPLICANT
NAMELY BHOOP SINGH YADAV.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the applicant is a peace loving and law abiding citizen.

The identity proof of the applicant is enclosed along with
the said application.

2. That the present application is being filed by the Applicant in

terms of the direction given by this Hon'ble Court as recorded
in the order dated 18.01.2024. In the matter titled “State V.
ANT Travel Pvt. Ltd.”.

3. That the Applicant is the bonafide purchaser of buses bearing

Registration No. AR-06-C-7031 and AR-06-B-7301 which
 was purchased from erstwhile owner and predecessor in
interest subject to payment of the said consideration. The
Registration Certificates of the buses bearing Registration No.
AR-06-C-7031 and AR-06-B-7301 have been issued by the
Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Moreso, the said buses
have requisite Insurance Policy, All India Tourist permits,
Certificate of Fitness which have been duly issued by the
competent authorities in the favour of Mr. Bhoop Singh
Yadav. The said documents are enclosed along with the
present application. It is noteworthy to mention that the
applicant herein is the sole and absolute owner of the above
mentioned buses contrary to the contentions of M/s ANT
Travel Pvt. Ltd.

4. That on the basis of false and vexatious complaint the

aforementioned buses were impounded by the local police of
Police Station, Subroto Park and were deposited in the
Malkhana of P.S Delhi Cantt.

5. That it has come to the knowledge of the applicant that M/s

ANT Travel Pvt. Ltd. and Asha Kanwar had previously moved
an application under section 451/457 of the code seeking
release of vehicles, namely buses having registration no.
UP16FT5933 and UP16FT5934 on superdari. The said
applications were dismissed by this Hon’ble Court that neither
M/s ANT Travel Pvt. Ltd. nor Ms. Asha Kanwar was the
owner of the aforementioned buses. In this regard a status
report was filed by the concerned IO. In terms of the status
report it was stated that one Mr. Lokesh S/o Satbir Singh R/o
VPO JAT Bherot, Alwar, Rajasthan has filed a complaint vide
 ICMS No. 81710112300341 Dated 06.06.2023 at P.S. Delhi
Cantt, District South West wherein it was alleged that one
Vikas, Yogesh and Bhoop Singh being the owner of M/s
Vikas Travels are running private buses from Dhaula Kuan to
Jaipur on forged papers as such enquiry was initiated and Mr.
Lokesh joined the enquiry and retretted the same facts as
mentioned in the complaint. In this regard further enquiry was
initiated and since the engine no. and chassis no. of the two
buses were found to be tampered, the same were sent to FSL
Rohini for providing expert opinion quo tampering on engine
no. and chassis no.

6. That the concerned categorically stated in the status report it

was found that initially UP16FT5934 AND UP16FT5933 was
purchased by M/s ANT Travels Pvt. Ltd. through bank loan
from Kotak Mahindra Bank however M/s ANT Travels Pvt.
Ltd. defaulted in payment of the said loan and the buses were
confiscated by Kotak Mahindra bank and later sold to M/s.
Asha Kanwar. Thereafter, the chassis no. of the above two
buses were tampered twice and the above two buses were
found to be registered in the name of Bhoop Singh Yadav S/o
Ramji Lal Yadav R/o 453, Ganesh Nagar Mani, Niwaru Road
Jaipur, Rajasthan firstly from Manipur (MN08T0209 and
MN08T2010) and later from Arunachal Pradesh (AR-06-C-
7031 and AR-06-B-7301). In addition, the status report stated
that there may be tampering of chassis no. with the help of
concealment and misrepresentation of facts with the State
Transport Authority of Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh.
7. That it is pertinent to mention that the previous application
seeking release of the aforementioned buses alleged to be
having registration no. UP16FT5933 and UP16FT5934 were
dismissed by this Hon'ble Court order dated 21.09.2023 and
17.11.2023.

8. That without prejudice to any rights and contentions it is an

admitted position that the applicant is the sole bonafide owner
of the aforementioned buses Registration No. AR-06-C-7031
and AR-06-B-7301 who has purchased the same after payment
of requisite sale consideration to the erstwhile owner
predecessor in interest. Moreso, the registration documents
and insurance policy, All India Tourist permits, fitness
documents are issued in the name of the Applicant herein.
Even otherwise the status report file by the police officer also
stipulates that M/s ANT Travels Pvt. Ltd. is not the owner of
the buses as such M/s ANT Travels Pvt. Ltd. has no locus to
file the application seeking release of buses on superdari.

9. That without prejudice to the above rights and contentions the

Applicant purchased the said two buses from Ms. Asha
Kanwar and have no idea how Engine No. and Chassis No. of
the said two buses were tampered according to the FSL
Report. The Applicant must be given the chance to defend his
case before the appropriate authority and should be considered
as Victim/Aggrieved. Since has purchased the aforementioned
buses as a bonafide purchaser and even the documents also
substantiate the plea of the applicant herein.
10. The Applicant purchased the said two buses for the business of
providing tour and travelling services. Furthermore, the
Applicant is the owner of M/s Vikas Travels and is in the
business of running private buses from Dhaula Kuan to Jaipur
and said two buses were used by the Applicant in his business.
The current pictures of the said two buses prima facie shows
that the said two buses were used by M/s Vikas Travels and as
such was in the exclusive possession of the applicant without
any demur/ protest or objections by any whatsoever.

11. In Govindbhai Tejabhai Bariya Vs. State of Gujarat, The

High Court of Gujarat held on 14.12.2000:

“15. In view of the above legal position, if the learned

Magistrate had passed an order to restore possession of
the vehicles in question to the person from whose
custody they were seized, then it cannot be said that
said order is incorrect, illegal or perverse. The learned
Sessions Judge has not assigned any reasons to disturb
the finding arrived at by the learned Magistrate. The
learned Magistrate passed an order in accordance with
a well settled legal position with regard to return of
muddamal articles to the person from whose custody
they were taken. Even if the arguments are accepted
that the property should be delivered to the person
entitled to the possession thereof, then also as a
bonafide purchaser for value without notice, the
purchaser is entitled to the possession of said two
vehicles.”
12. In T.C. Gopalan Nair Vs. P. Kelu and Ors., The High
Court of Mysore decision dated 06.04.1973, held that:

“4.…..the court has got to make such an order as it

thinks fit for the proper custody of such property
pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. The power
to order for custody of the property given to a
Magistrate under Section 516-A, Cr. P. C. should not be
used to determine the ownership of property. It is a
matter strictly within the sphere of the Civil Court...”

13. In the matter General Insurance Council and Ors. V. State

of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (19.04.2010 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0271/2010, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

“15. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when

vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not
only they occupy substantial space of the police stations but
upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural
decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good
maintained vehicle loses its roadworthiness if it is kept
stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days.
Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common
knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said
vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the
vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road…..”

14. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. The State of Gujarat,

2002, The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was primarily dealing with provisions of Sections 451 and 457
of the Code. While quoting the aforesaid two provisions of the
Act in the judgment, it was observed in para 7 and 17 as
under:

“7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should
be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve
various purposes, namely:

1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its

remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

2. court or the police would not be required to keep

the article in safe custody;

3. if the proper panchnama before handing over

possession of the article is prepared, that can be used
in evidence instead of its production before the court
during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be
recorded describing the nature of the property in
detail; and

4. This jurisdiction of the court to record evidence

should be exercised promptly so that there may not
be further chance of tampering with the articles.

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.”
15. That the said two buses are the only source of earning
livelihood for the Applicant and since the time the said two
buses are being seized/impounded, the Applicant is facing
huge losses and hardship in his survival. The Applicant is
facing irreparable loss because the said two buses are lying in
the custody of police without any maintenance and
unattended. The condition of the said buses are deteriorating
day by day and are on the verge of becoming junk.

16. That the said two buses are no longer required by the Police
for any purpose. The Applicant/ Owner requests the Hon’ble
Court to release the said two buses.

17. That the present Applicant undertake to abide by any

conditions imposed by this Hon'ble court, while releasing the
above-mentioned vehicles, on superdari, in his favour.
18. That the Applicant undertakes to produce the said articles as
and when required by the Investigating Agency or as directed
by this Hon'ble Court and further undertakes that he will not
sell or dispose off the said articles without prior permission of
this Hon'ble Court.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may :

a. To pass an order calling Status Report regarding the

above mentioned matter from SHO/IO of said Police
Station.
 b. Kindly direct the SHO/IO of said Police Station to
release the said two buses bearing Registration No. AR-
06-C-7031 And AR-06-B-7301 to the Applicant, on
superdari, in the interest of justice.
c. Pass any other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the present case.

APPLICANT

Through

COUNSELS FOR THE APPLICANT

NITIN GUPTA/ SAHIL CHOPRA
(D/379/2004)/ (D/1538/2010)
THE LAW CHAMBERS
F-31, FIRST FLOOR
CONNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI-110001
Mob. No. 9811369652/9654440009
Email Id: [email protected]
[email protected]
Filed On: ___ January 2024
Place: New Delhi
 IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAHUL JAIN, LD. M.M.-08 , NEW
DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
STATE
VERSUS
BHOOP SINGH YADAV
AFFIDAVIT
I, Bhoop Singh Yadav S/o Ramji Lal Yadav R/o Plot No.453,
Ganesh Naagar Mani, Niwaru Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan years, do
hereby solemnly affirm and. declare as under:-
1. That I am the Applicant in the above noted case and am fully
conversant with the facts of the case and thus competent to
swear this affidavit.
2. That the contents of the accompanying Application have been
drafted by my Counsel under my instructions and the contents
thereof have been read over and understood by me and the
same are true to my knowledge and may kindly be read as a
part of this affidavit being not repeated herein for the sake of
brevity.
3. That above are my true and correct statements.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this day of January, 2024 that the
contents of my above mentioned affidavit are true to my knowledge
and nothing material has been concealed therefrom and no part
thereof is false.

DEPONENT