Revision allowed quashing order dismissing petitioners request to release seized motorcycle released on personal bond conditions.
Motorcycle released to petitioner on furnishing personal bond with sureties, photographing vehicle, and undertaking not to transfer ownership.
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.
(1 of 3)
[CRLR-1210/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1210/2021
Narendra Singh Tanwar Son Of Shri Prabhusingh Tanwar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Survey No. 246, Shiwaji Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Police Station Bhattabasti, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Aswal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order
18/11/2021
This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-1, whereby the application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 451 read with Section 457 Cr.P.C for releasing the Motorcycle No.RJ-14-JR-9191 has been dismissed.
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. State,1994 Cri Lr (Raj) 4, Prakash Chand vs. State of
(2 of 3)
[CRLR-1210/2021]
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’.
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 subject-matter 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.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
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, there is no material available on record regarding initiation of confiscation proceedings in the present case.
In these circumstances, this criminal revision petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 16.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-1 is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the Motorcycle No.RJ-14-JR-9191 be
(3 of 3)
[CRLR-1210/2021]
released in favour of the petitioner on ‘supurdginama’ on her producing original registration certificate and on satisfying following conditions:-
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
FRBOHRA/6-27
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a vehicle seized under NDPS Act can be released to its registered owner if no confiscation order has been passed.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application for release of the seized motorcycle should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of GujaratRelied on¶14
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 290 · Who else cites this
Phool Singh vs. State of RajasthanRelied on¶14
Phool Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2682/2012
Bal Mikand vs. StateRelied on¶14
Bal Mikand vs. State, 1994 Cri Lr (Raj) 4
Prakash Chand vs. State of RajasthanRelied on¶14
Prakash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.416/2010
Laxman vs. State of RajasthanRelied on¶14
Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.61/2018
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Narendra Singh Tanwar
State Of Rajasthan
Uma Shanker Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
