Allowed criminal revision regarding refusal to restore seized vehicle. Court held interim custody of vehicle cannot be denied due to offence severity or confiscation risk if ownership established, ordering its release on bond conditions.
Impugned order set aside; vehicle released on surety bond and photographing conditions pending trial completion.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 602/2022
Suresh S/o Sh. Nathuji, Aged About 33 Years, Bhawa, P.s. Kankroli, Dist. Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
| Versus |
|---|
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Bharat Shrimali |
|---|---|
| Mr. Rajendra Singh | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Gaurav Singh,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order
18/01/2023
The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali in Cr. Misc. Case No.19/2022 pertaining to FIR No.76/2018 registered at Police Station Khiwada, District Pali for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act, whereby the prayer to release the seized Alto K10 VXI Car bearing No.RJ-30-CA-5992 (hereinafter referred to as vehicle in question) on supurdaginama in favour of the petitioner, has been rejected.
As per prosecution story, 65.370 kgs poppy straw without having any license or permit was recovered from the said vehicle in question. After investigation, the police found that petitioner was the owner of the said vehicle.
The trial court has rejected the application filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking interim custody of
(2 of 4) [CRLR-602/2022]
the vehicle in question and on the ground that narcotic substance was recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well the order impugned.
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.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the order impugned passed by the trial court, prays for rejection of the present revision petition.
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 per prosecution story, the petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle.
Keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat
(3 of 4)
[CRLR-602/2022]
(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.
Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.04.2022 passed by learned trial court is set aside and Alto K10 VXI Car bearing registration No.RJ-30-CA-5992 is ordered to be released on ‘supurdagi’ in favour of the petitioner till completion of the trial on the following conditions:-
(a) the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to produce the vehicle aforesaid in the Court as and when required to do so.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(4 of 4) [CRLR-602/2022]
(f) before releasing the vehicle the trial court shall verify the original documents of the vehicle.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
30-nidhi/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interim custody of the vehicle alleged to be used in NDPS offence can be denied on the ground of severity of offence or liability to confiscation.
Whether the registered owner of the vehicle is entitled to retain interim custody pending trial under NDPS Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of GujaratExplained¶17
(2002) 10 SCC 283 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Suresh S/o Sh. Nathuji
State Of Rajasthan
Madan Gopal Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
