Allowed

Rohitash Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Jan 2023CRLR/85/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision to grant interim custody of a truck seized in NDPS case to the registered petitioner, setting aside trial court rejection based on injury to vehicle and severity of offence, subject to bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; truck released on superdagi subject to personal bond of Rs. 10 lakh with sureties, photographing of vehicle, and undertakings not to transfer or misuse.

Rohitash Jat Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/002354]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 85/2023

¶4

Rohitash Jat S/o Balram Jat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o House Heera Mandi, Khariyan, H.no. 216, Sirsa Dist. Sirsa (Hariyana).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	KC Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Gaurav Singh,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶11

Judgment

¶12

25/01/2023

¶13

The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C against the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhilwara in Cr. Case No.75/2022 pertaining to FIR No.197/2022 registered at Police Station Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act, whereby the prayer to release the seized Truck (hereinafter referred to as the vehicle in question for short) bearing No.HR-67A-9469 on supurdaginama in favour of the petitioner, has been rejected. As per prosecution story, 20 kgs and 400 grams poppy straw without having any license or permit was recovered from the vehicle in question. 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

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/002354]

[CRLR-85/2023]

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

¶19

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

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for interim custody of the vehicle in question submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question, and therefore, he is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle in question. 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Having heard the rival submissions and perusal of the record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the interim custody of the vehicle in question 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 vehicle in question.

(3 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/002354]

[CRLR-85/2023]

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 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.

¶27

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.11.2022 passed by learned trial court is set aside and Truck bearing registration No.HR-67A-9469 is ordered to be released on ‘supurdagi’ in favour of the petitioner till completion of the trial on the following conditions:-

¶28

(a) the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to produce the vehicle aforesaid in the Court as and when required to do so.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

(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.

¶32

(e) the petitioner will not allow the vehicle aforesaid to be used for any antisocial activities including for the

¶33

(4 of 4) [CRLR-85/2023]

¶34

[2023/RJJD/002354]

¶35

purpose of carrying narcotics which may constitute offence under the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶36

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

¶37

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J