Allowed

Devi Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2022CRLR/228/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition, setting aside the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's claim for interim custody of a seized Tempo vehicle. The court ruled that the vehicle must be released to the owner to prevent deterioration while the trial proceeds, subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Tempo bearing registration No. RJ33-GA-2319 released on 'supurdagi' to petitioner subject to bond and conditions.

Devi Singh Vs State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 228/2020

¶3

Devi Singh S/o Dhul Singh, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Gomana, Tehsil Choti Sadri, District Pratapgarh.

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through P.p.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. RK Charan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sudheer Tak,PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶10

Judgment

¶11

07/02/2022

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 22.1.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.2, Chittorgarh in Cr. Misc. Case No.33/2020 pertaining to FIR No.57/2015 registered at Police Station Nikumbh, for the offences under Sections 8/15,25, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC, whereby the prayer to release the seized Tempo bearing No.RJ33-GA-2319 on supurdaginama in favour of the petitioner, has been rejected.

¶13

As per prosecution story, certain contraband articles were stolen from the Malkhana and the offending vehicle was used for the same. After investigation, the police found that petitioner was owner of the said vehicle.

¶14

The trial court has rejected the application filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking interim custody of

¶15

(2 of 4) [CRLR-228/2020]

¶16

the subject vehicle on the ground of severity of offence and possessing the narcotic substance by the petitioner.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well the order impugned.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for interim custody of the subject vehicle submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the said car, and therefore, he is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 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.

¶19

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the order impugned passed by the trial court, prays for rejection of the revision petition.

¶20

Having heard the rival submissions and perusal of the record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the interim custody of the vehicle alleged to be used in committing the offence of NDPS Act cannot be denied on the ground of severity of offence. It is also settled legal proposition of law that interim custody of the vehicle cannot be denied on the ground that it is liable to be confiscated, in case the offence is proved against the accused. As per prosecution story, the petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle.

¶21

Keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CRLR-228/2020]

¶24

(supra), there is no reason to deny interim custody of the vehicle to the owner or person entitled to get possession of the vehicle. If the vehicle is allowed to be kept in the police station for an indefinite period, then value of the vehicle shall be diminished substantially and it may not remain in usable condition. In the above circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

¶25

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.1.2020 passed by learned trial court is set aside and Tempo bearing registration No.RJ33-GA-2319 is ordered to be released on ‘supurdagi’ in favour of the petitioner till completion of the trial on the following conditions:-

¶26

(a) the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 3,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to produce the vehicle aforesaid in the Court as and when required to do so.

¶27

(b) the petitioner shall get the vehicle aforesaid 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.

¶28

(c) 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, which is with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them.

¶29

(d) the petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle aforesaid 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.

¶30

(e) the petitioner will not allow the vehicle aforesaid to be used for any antisocial activities including for the purpose of carrying narcotics which may constitute offence under the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[CRLR-228/2020]

¶33

(f) before releasing the vehicle the trial court shall verify the original documents of the vehicle.

¶34

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶35

27-CPGoyal/-

Devi Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Singh v. State

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

Manohar Singh Vs State

Rajveer Singh Vs State

Bhagirath Singh Vs Om Prakash

Ganga Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilip Vs State of Rajasthan

Inder Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan