Allowed

Devigan Urf Degen Verman Son of Shri Basanta Verman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Feb 2021CRLMP/47/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Rajasthan allowed the quashment of the trial court's order dismissing an application for the release of a seized scooter on 'supurdgi'. The Court held that since no confiscation order had been passed, the vehicle must be released to the registered owner subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 02.11.2020 was quashed; the vehicle RJ14-WH-3066 was directed to be released on 'supurdgi' subject to furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of Rs. 12,500 each and

Devigan Urf Degen Verman Son of Shri Basanta Verman Vs… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 47/2021

¶3

Devigan Urf Degen Verman Son Of Shri Basanta Verman, Resident Of Kalpani, Police Station Pundibadi, Couch Bihar, West Bangal (Raj.).

¶4

----Accused/Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶9

Order

¶10

18/02/2021

¶11

In pursuance of direction of this Court, learned Public Prosecutor submits that confiscation of the vehicle in question has not been made till date.

¶12

This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.11.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release of vehicle on ‘supurdgi’, has been dismissed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered owner of two wheeler vehicle, i.e., a Scooty bearing Registration No.RJ14-WH-3066. He contended that his application for release of vehicle on ‘supurdgi’ has been dismissed by the learned trial Court on the premise that the vehicle was used in commission of offence under the provision of the NDPS Act, 1985

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMP-47/2021]

¶16

(for brevity “the Act of 1985”) and there is probability of confiscation of the vehicle in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in case of Rekha

¶17

Soni vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.733/2020 decided on 09.02.2021, submitted that the reasonings assigned for rejecting his prayer are not tenable and prayed for release of the vehicle.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this criminal miscellaneous petition.

¶19

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

It is undisputed that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question which has not been claimed by any other person. It is settled law that the vehicle seized under the provision of the Act of 1985 can be released in favour of the registered owner, though, he may be an accused also therein, if no order of confiscation has been passed. In the present case, as apprised by learned Public Prosecutor, no confiscation order has been passed till date qua the vehicle in question.

¶21

In these circumstances, this criminal miscellaneous petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 02.11.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the vehicle bearing No.RJ14-WH-3066 be released in favour of the petitioner on ‘ supurdginama’ on his producing original registration certificate and on satisfying following conditions:-

¶22

(1) He furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of Rs.12,500/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with undertaking to

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMP-47/2021]

¶25

produce the vehicle in question in the Court as and when required to do so.

¶26

(2) He shall get the vehicle in question 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.

¶27

(3) The personal bond 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 photographs of persons identifying them before the Court with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them.

¶28

(4) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question 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.

¶29

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶30

PRAGATI/42

Devigan Urf Degen Verman Son of Shri Basanta Verman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devigan Urf Degen Verman Son of Shri Basanta Verman 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

Satpal Son of Shri Ramcharan Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rishipal Gurjar S/O Sugan Chand Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Harkesh S/O Shri Rajaram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Prabhakar S/O Shri Kuldeep Raj Prabkahar Vs State of Rajasthan

Anand Singhal S/O Shri Mangi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Singh S/O Kamal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan