Allowed

Manoj v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Nov 2022CRLMP/4565/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

dispose of S.B. criminal miscellaneous petition challenging rejection of vehicle release prayer; grant interim custody of seized motorcycle to petitioner conditioned on furnishing security deposit and surety to the magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle bearing registration RJ-19 DE 3450 released to petitioner upon furnishing security deposit of Rs.70,000 and surety of like amount before the Magistrate.

Manoj Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4565/2022

¶3

Manoj S/o Sukh Ram, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Pataniyo Ki Dhani, Thatanagar, Lohawat, Police Station Lohawat, District Jodhpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxman Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶10

Order

¶11

24/11/2022

¶12

By way of filing of the instant miscellaneous petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 23.06.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge of NDPS Cases, Phalodi Distt. Jodhpur in FIR No.100/2022 registered at Police Station Lohawat, District Jodhpur whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle in question Motor Cycle bearing registration No.RJ-19 DE 3450, has been declined.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the owner of the vehicle in question which has been seized by the Police Officers. He submits that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle in question, is the person best entitled to get back the possession of the seized property. He further submits that the order of confiscation can be passed only after the proceedings are initiated in this respect. There is no other person claiming supurdagi of the same.

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMP-4565/2022]

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal miscellaneous petition.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material available on record.

¶18

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2005/2022 [@ SLP [CRL.] NO. 7280/2022] titled Sainaba Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr. wherein the vehicle involved in a crime under NDPS Act was directed to be released on terms and conditions as determined by the Special Court, this Court deems it just and appropriate to grant the interim custody of the vehicle in question to the petitioner till completion of trial.

¶19

Accordingly, the Misc. Petition is allowed. It is ordered that the vehicle in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner provided he furnishes a Supurdaginama of Rs.70,000/- and surety of like amount before the Magistrate concerned.

¶20

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶21

102-Anshul/-

Manoj v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mazhar Ahmed Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar Chandel Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Tak Vs State

Abhishek Vs Smt. Baby

Neha Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Hari Mohan Vs State