Partly allowed

Shankarlal S/O Ramchandra, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Sept 2024CRLMP/1607/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to modify an order dismissing an application for release of a seized vehicle. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court directed the trial court to release the vehicle upon strict conditions, including execution of an indemnity bond and surrender of photographs, to prevent it from becoming obsolete rust while ensuring its availability fo

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; vehicle to be released on conditions: keeping intact, producing for identification, furnishing photos, undertaking no illegal use, and executing indemnity bond with two sureti

Shankarlal S/O Ramchandra, Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:39625]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1607/2024

¶4

Shankarlal S/o Ramchandra, R/o Bhojpura, Police Station Raisar, District Jaipur Gramin (Raj).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. G.A

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶11

Order

¶12

19/09/2024

¶13

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by Special Judge N.D.P.S, Act, Chhabra District Baran in Application No.77/2024, whereby the said Court dismissed the petitioner’s application under Section 457 CrPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings have been initiated qua the vehicle and the same is case property of FIR No.47/2024 registered at Police Station Chhabra, District Baran for the offence under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act. He further submits that there is no rival claimant of the vehicle in question. If the vehicle in question is not released in favour of the petitioner, it would be reduced into junk of nobody's use. He further submits that the rejection order has

[2024:RJ-JP:39625]

[CRLMP-1607/2024]

(2 of 3)

been passed by the Court below on flimsy ground, hence the vehicle in question is required to be released on supurdagi.

¶20

Learned Additional G.A has opposed the same.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 , 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.

¶23

Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) , present petition is partly allowed, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is modified and the trial court is directed to release the vehicle seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-

¶24

a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification.

¶25

b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.

¶26

c) That the petitioner shall furnish the photographs of the vehicle in question showing its number and colour etc.

¶27

d) At the time of release, the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the effect that the vehicle in question shall not be used for any illegal purpose and if so found, the petitioner shall be personally liable.

¶28

e) That the petitioner shall execute a Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and shall also furnish two surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

[2024:RJ-JP:39625]

[CRLMP-1607/2024]

(3 of 3)

Needless to say that before releasing the vehicle in question on Supurdagi, trial court shall ascertain the fact that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle in question and no confiscation proceedings have been initiated in relation to the vehicle in question.

¶33

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶34

AVINASH GULERIA /116

Shankarlal S/O Ramchandra, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankarlal S/O Ramchandra, 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

Ram Charan Gupta Vs State and Anor

Sohan Lal Vs State

Ramesh Yadav Vs State

Kirti Sharma D/O Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Khalik Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

State of Rajasthan Vs Mohanlal S/O Ramgopal