Held that the seized vehicle must be released to the petitioner by imposing conditions such as executing an indemnity bond and appearing for identification.
Petition allowed; Trial court directed to release seized vehicle subject to indemnity bond, sureties, and commitment to production for identification.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1325/2021
Imran Son Of Eshak, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Rasulpura, Post Madar, Police Station Alwar Gate, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shantnu Bansal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
13/07/2021
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 5.2.2021 passed by Special Judge N.D.P.S., Jaipur Metropolitan-I, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Thar Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-23UB-1932 to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle in question.
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.55/2020 registered at Police Station Bagaru, District Jaipur for the offences under Sections 8/22 & 8/25 of NDPS Act.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10
(2 of 2)
[CRLMP-1325/2021]
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.
Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) , present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the vehicle seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-
a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change their identification.
b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.
c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.
(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.
Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Brijesh 103.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the seized Thar Jeep should be released to the registered petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether release of case property is permitted without confiscation proceedings pending.
What conditions should be imposed for the release of the vehicle.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of GujaratRelied on¶17
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Imran Son Of Eshak
State Of Rajasthan
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
