Allowed

Bhagirath Machra S/O Shri Jugtaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Nov 2021CRLR/1091/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenges an order dismissing an application for release of a seized vehicle under the NDPS Act. The High Court held that a registered owner is entitled to the vehicle if no confiscation order exists, allowing the petition and quashing the lower order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kekri is quashed. The vehicle is directed to be released to the petitioner.

Bhagirath Machra S/O Shri Jugtaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1091/2021

¶3

Bhagirath Machra S/o Shri Jugtaram, R/o Macharo Ke Dhani Kheda, Salva, Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur City (Raj)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶7

For Petitioner(s)	:	----Respondent Mr. VinayPal Yadav,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Imran Khan,P.P.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶9

Order

¶10

16/11/2021

¶11

This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Kekri, whereby the application filed by the accused-petitioner under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C for releasing the Maruti Car Alto No.RJ-22-CB-5711 has been dismissed.

¶12

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle and there is no other rival claim for its release. Relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in cases of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 290 and Coordinate Bench Judgments dated 14.08.2012 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2682/2012, Phool Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and in cases of Bal Mikand vs.

¶13

(2 of 3)

¶14

[CRLR-1091/2021]

¶15

State,1994 Cri Lr (Raj) 4, Prakash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.416/2010 decided on 12.03.2010 & Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.61/2018 decided on 16.04.2018 , learned counsel submitted that vehicle be given to the petitioner on furnishing ‘supurdginama’.

¶16

Opposing the prayer, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that vehicle in question was used for commission of offence under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity “the Act of 1985”) and can be subjectmatter of confiscation under Section 60 of the Act of 1985 and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for release of the vehicle in his favour.

¶17

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

It is undisputed that petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question which has not been claimed by any other person. Now, it is no more res integra that vehicle seized under the provisions of the Act of 1985 can be released in favour of its registered owner; though, may be an accused, if no order of confiscation has been passed, which has not been done in the present case.

¶19

In these circumstances, this criminal revision petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Kekri is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the Maruti Car Alto No.RJ-22-CB-5711 be released in favour

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CRLR-1091/2021]

¶22

of the petitioner on ‘supurdginama’ on his producing original registration certificate and on satisfying following conditions:-

¶23

(1) He furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/-each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the vehicle in question in the Court as and when required to do so.

¶24

(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.

¶25

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

¶26

(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 and produce the same before the court as and when required.

¶27

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶28

FRBOHRA/70

Bhagirath Machra S/O Shri Jugtaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagirath Machra S/O Shri Jugtaram 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

Lala Alias Lal Chand Gurjar Vs Mali Ram and Others

Lala Alias Lal Chand Gurjar Vs Mali Ram and Others

Dulichand and Others Vs Ganguram and Others

Amrat Lal Son of Phool Vs State of Rajasthan

Abdul Hameed Son of Samda Ji Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohit Gupta S/O Mahaveer Prasad Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan