Allowed

Rakesh Kumar Bharti v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2023CRLR/59/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision to set aside order rejecting interim custody of seized vehicle. Court held owner entitled to custody on supurdagi in bond to prevent deterioration and uphold Supreme Court precedent, ordering release of car with specific conditions despite drug charges.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to obtain interim custody of seized Swift Dzire on 'supurdagi' by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and complying with specified conditions regarding ownership and usage.

Rakesh Kumar Bharti Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 59/2023

¶3

Rakesh Kumar Bharti S/o Gourishankar, Aged About 35 Years, R/ o Ward No. 18 Choprawali Gali, Near Shiv Chowk, Sirsa, Haryana Through Power Of Attorney Holder Lokendra Singh S/o Shishpal Singh, B/c Rajput, Aged 27 Years, R/o Udasar Bada, P.s. Khuinya District Hanumangarh.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Vishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anees Bhurat, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶10

Order

¶11

03/02/2023

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judge NDPS Cases, Bikaner in Cr. Misc. Case No.236/2022 pertaining to FIR No. 98/2022 registered at Police Station Chhatargarh, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, whereby the prayer to release the seized Swift Dzire Car bearing No.HR-76-B6412 (hereinafter referred to as vehicle in question) on supurdaginama in favour of the petitioner, has been rejected.

¶13

As per prosecution story, 20kg poppy straw without having any license or permit was recovered from the said vehicle in question. After investigation, the police found that petitioner was owner of the said vehicle.

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CRLR-59/2023]

¶16

The trial court has rejected the application filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking interim custody of the vehicle in question on the ground of severity of offence and on the ground that narcotic substance was recovered from the possession of 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 vehicle in question submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the said vehicle, and therefore, he is entitled to obtain 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 present revision petition.

¶20

Having heard the rival submissions and on 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

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[CRLR-59/2023]

¶23

per prosecution story, the petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle.

¶24

Keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (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 the 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 09.01.2023 passed by learned trial court is set aside and Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No. HR-76-B-6412 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. 3,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 1,50,000/- 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

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[CRLR-59/2023]

¶32

anyone and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable.

¶33

(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.

¶34

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

¶35

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶36

19-nidhi/-

Rakesh Kumar Bharti v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Bharti 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

Dakhi Bai Vs S.M. Murugesan

Karan Singh Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Dhiraj Kumar

Smt Jyoti Kanwar Vs State

Shrichand Vs State of Rajasthan

Satya Prakash Sankhala Vs State of Rajasthan