Allowed

Suresh Kumar v. State

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2020CRLR/1074/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a criminal revision petition challenging the rejection of an application for vehicle release. The High Court held that the vehicle can be conditionally released to the petitioner on a surety bond with specific conditions including photographs and prohibitions on altering ownership or using it for illegal activities.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; vehicle released on personal bond of Rs.6,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.3,00,000 each subject to specified conditions including photographs and non-transfer of ownership.

Suresh Kumar Vs State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1074/2019

¶3

Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Jhinjhiniwala, Tehsil Balesar, Police Thana Balesar, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through P.p.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶10

Order

¶11

10/01/2020

¶12

Petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to assail the impugned judgment dated 03.08.2019 passed by Learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jodhpur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application under Section 457 Cr.P.C., moved by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle Swift Car bearing No.RJ-15TA-0809.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has placed reliance on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered at Jaipur Bench in Prakash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010(1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 507. In the aforesaid judgment, the vehicle and other articles were seized from the accused for carrying contraband of small quantity just

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLR-1074/2019]

¶17

above the commercial quantity. It is in that background, the Court has acceded to the prayer of the incumbent and recorded its finding that solely for the reason that the vehicle and other articles are likely to be confiscated after trial, conditional release of the vehicle and other articles on Supurdginama and surety cannot be denied and interim custody of the vehicle and other articles can be granted to the incumbent on certain conditions.

¶18

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283 and coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in case of Prakash Chand (supra) has held that conditional release of the vehicle cannot be denied.

¶19

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed and the order dated 03.08.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside and the vehicle car Swift Car bearing No.RJ-15-TA-0809 in question is ordered to be released on ‘supardgi’ till the completion of the trial upon following conditions:-

¶20

(a) the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.3,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the Car in the Court as and when required to do so.

¶21

(b) the petitioner shall get the Car photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case.

¶22

(c) the personal bonds of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and his sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photograph of perhaps identifying them before the Court which is with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them.

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLR-1074/2019]

¶25

(d) the petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the Car and not to lease it to anyone and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable.

¶26

(e) the petitioner will not allow the vehicle car Swift Car bearing No.RJ-15-TA-0809 to be used for any antisocial activities including for the purpose of carrying narcotics which may constitute offence under the NDPS Act.”

¶27

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶28

67-Ishan/-

Suresh Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish Vs State and Anr.

Omprakash Vs State

Rama @ Ramlal Vs State

Soaib Vs State of Rajasthan

Mada Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Khetaram Vs State