The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the dismissal of his application to release a seized vehicle on supradginama. The High Court found the petitioner was not involved as he had sold the vehicle to the accused and dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 240 / 2018
Bhupendra Singh S/o Satnam Singh, By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident of Dhaneth Tehsil Samana District Patiala (Punjab).
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : S.K. Poonia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Rawal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
03/05/2018
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act Case, Rajgarh District Churu in Criminal Misc. Case No.449/2017 (for short ‘the court below’), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for releasing the Truck No.PB 11BF 8029 on ‘supardginama’ during the pendency of the Sessions Case No.41/2017 State of Rajasthan vs. Buta Singh & Ors. has been dismissed.
The court below has taken into consideration the fact that police after thorough investigation have concluded that though the petitioner-Bhupenra Singh was the registered owner of the vehicle in question but he had already sold the same to accused Buta Singh and, therefore, petitioner-Bhupendra Singh is not involved
(2 of 2)
[CRLMP-240/2018]
in commission of any crime for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 25 of the NDPS Act. With these conclusions, the police have filed charge sheet against Boota Singh only.
The trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that similar application preferred on behalf of the accused Boota Singh for releasing the vehicle in question on ‘supardginama’ during the pendency of the trial court has already been dismissed.
Having taken into consideration the fact that the evidence of this effect is available on record that petitioner-Bhupendra Singh had already also sold his vehicle to Boota Singh, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for releasing the vehicle in question on ‘supardginama’ has been dismissed.
In view of the above, there is no merit in this criminal misc. petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.
Taruna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the order dismissing the application for releasing a seized vehicle on supradginama when the petitioner is not a registered owner.
Whether the impugned order lacks legality considering the petitioner sold the vehicle to the accused.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhupendra Singh S/o Satnam Singh
The State of Rajasthan
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
