Allowed

Ahmad Hussain @ Pinchu Son of Babu Qureshi, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Aug 2024CRLMP/745/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Bench allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the trial court to release a seized vehicle to the registered owner on surrender conditions, setting aside the lower court's dismissal of the release application and directing the imposition of undertakings to prevent illegal use.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside was quashed; the petitioner was directed to deliver an undertaking against illegal use, execute a supurdagi binding, and furnish two surety bonds; the vehicle was orde

Ahmad Hussain @ Pinchu Son of Babu Qureshi, Vs State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:34131]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 745/2024

¶4

Ahmad Hussain @ Pinchu Son Of Babu Qureshi, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Survey No. 41, Hamid Nagar, P.s. Jalupura, Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Asad Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶11

Order

¶12

12/08/2024

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metro-I in Criminal Application No. 563/2023, whereby the trial court dismissed the petitioner’s application for releasing the vehicle bearing No. RJ-14-CG-2378 on Supurdgi .

¶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. 307/2023 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur for the offence under Section 8/22, 8/25 and 8/29 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

[2024:RJ-JP:34131]

[CRLMP-745/2024]

(2 of 3)

junk of nobody's use. He further submits that the rejection order has been passed by the trial Court on flimsy ground, hence the vehicle in question is required to be released on supurdagi.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor 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 allowed, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside 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.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:34131]

[CRLMP-745/2024]

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

Ritu/304

Ahmad Hussain @ Pinchu Son of Babu Qureshi, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmad Hussain @ Pinchu Son of Babu Qureshi, 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

Kashish Mukhi D/O Shyam Sundar Mukhi Vs State of Rajasthan

Giraja Kumari D/O Sh. Mohan Lal Kumawat, W/O Bheru Lal Bagiya, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sobhag Purohit D/O Sh. Jagaram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Nivedita Kuldeep D/O Mahendra Kumar Kuldeep, Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Manisha Gurjar Daughter of Shri Rattiram Gurjar Wife of Shri Jagdish Prasad Gurjar, Vs State of Rajasthan