Allowed

Nagina Begam W/O Ajiz Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Nov 2020CRLR/1099/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the refusal to release a seized vehicle. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the trial court to release the vehicle subject to conditions like maintaining identification and posting a surety bond.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; trial court directed to release seized vehicle subject to conditions of maintaining identity and posting surety bond.

Nagina Begam W/O Ajiz Khan Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1099/2020

¶3

Nagina Begam W/o Ajiz Khan, R/o Chamanpura Udei Mod Gangapur City, Tehsil Gangapur City, Distt. Sawai Madhopur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achintya Kaushik, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶10

Order

¶11

11/11/2020

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 12.06.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur (Raj.), be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release vehicle in question i.e. Maruti Suzuki Brezza bearing registration No. RJ-25-CA-7371 to the petitioner.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle in question.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle and the same is case property of case FIR No. 442/2019 registered at Police Station Bonly, District Sawai Madhopur for the offence under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act.

¶15

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

(2 of 2) [CRLR-1099/2020]

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

¶18

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme Court has held that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful.

¶19

Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) , present petition is allowed and the trail court is directed to release the vehicle seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-

¶20

a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change their identification.

¶21

b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.

¶22

c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶23

d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other conditions in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and sureties, which it may deem fit.

¶24

Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle.

¶25

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶26

Gourav/88

Nagina Begam W/O Ajiz Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagina Begam W/O Ajiz Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Vs Union of India

Ummed @ Samay Singh S/O Bhurya Vs State of Rajasthan

Lakkhi S/O Shri Ramju Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Nirmala W/O Ramesh Chand Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Aakash S/O Shri Lalit Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishnu @ Vishnu Kumar S/O Dhanpal Vs State of Rajasthan