Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Pradeep Kumar Chaurasia v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6274 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17850 (17 October 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

This appeal has been preferred by Pradeep Kumar  Chaurasia against the judgement and order dated 6.10.2006 passed by Special Judge, Gangster Act Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 1 of 2006 whereby the learned Trial Court has allowed the application filed by M/s Tata Motors for release of the L.P. Truck bearing Chesis No. 373341, EVZ  No. 003683 and Engine No. 6977045 and EVZ NO. 111517 on furnishing surety bond for Rs. 8 lacs. M/s Tata Motors has also been directed to file an undertaking to produce the Truck in the Court or before the competent officer whenever so directed by the Court.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned judgement.


Brief facts of the case are that father of the appellant was kidnapped by the accused persons and ransom of Rs. 50 lacs was paid.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Truck in question was purchased by the accused persons out of the ransom amount. It appears that the accused paid Rs. 2.30 lacs and the balance amount of Rs. 5.30 lacs was financed by M/s Tata motors. In this matter the accused and the complainant also filed an application for release of the Truck in their favour. Learned Trial Court by the impugned order held that the accused could not give any evidence to show that he purchased the truck out of  his own earning. It also held that complainant also failed to show that the amount of Rs.2.30 lacs as paid by the accused was paid out of the ransom amount. Learned Trial Court also held that the Truck was financed by the M/s Tata Motors and that the total amount due was not paid and therefore ownership vested in M/s Tata Motors and consequently he directed for release of Truck in its favour as aforesaid.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that this truck was directed to be released by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Varanasi in S. T. No. 758 of 2004 by order dated 3.3.2005. The complainant appellant filed a criminal Misc. Application No. 2734 of 2005 in this Court and the operation of the order dated 3.3.2005 was stayed by order dated 24.3.2005. During arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Truck in question has been released in favour of M/s Tata Motors on 11.10.2006.

In the circumstances of the case appeal be admitted. Notice be issued to the opposite party no. 2 and 3 to file counter affidavit, if any, within four weeks. Thereafter, rejoinder affidavit if any, be filed within one week. Notice of  opposite party no.2 be served through C.J.M., Varanasi as he is presently confined in District Jail, Varanasi as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant.

List for hearing on 4.12.2006. Till then opposite party no. 3 is directed not to change or transfer or dispose of the Truck in any manner whatsoever.

Dated: 17.10.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.