Allowed

Jahid Khan S/O Ajab Khan, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Feb 2024CRLMP/7943/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking release of a seized motorcycle on security during a trial under the NDPS Act. The Court quashed the order dismissing the application and directed the release of the vehicle to the petitioner on specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 01.08.2022 is quashed and set aside. The motorcycle is to be released on security on specific conditions.

Jahid Khan S/O Ajab Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:8962]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7943/2022

¶4

Jahid Khan S/o Ajab Khan, R/o Suranjani Police Thana Sitamau, District Mandsour (M.P).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶11

Order

¶12

21/02/2024

¶13

This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed challenging the order dated 01.08.2022, passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act and Additional Sessions Judge Bhawanimandi District Jhalawar whereby petitioner’s application filed under Section 451 Cr.PC to release the vehicle Motocycle bearing No. MP-14-NA-5719 seized in FIR No.74/2020 registered at Police Station Pagariya, District Jhalawar for offences under Sections 8/21 & 29 of the NDPS Act, has been dismissed and the vehicle in question on Supurdgi has not been released.

¶14

Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question, which was seized in the present criminal case, arising out of FIR No.74/2020 registered at Police Station Pagariya, District Jhalawar. He submits that petitioner is not accused in the present criminal case. He also submits that the charge sheet has already been filed and the conclusion of the criminal trial will take its own time. There is no rival claimant to take vehicle in question on Supurdgi and petitioner is ready to abide by terms and conditions

[2024:RJ-JP:8962]

[CRLMP-7943/2022]

(2 of 3)

imposed by this Court to release the vehicle. If the vehicle remains in custody of the Police, its condition would damage, the vehicle is parked at Police Station in an open place, and same would catch rust in dust and rain; further, the custody of vehicle with the Police is no more required during course of trial, therefore, in such circumstances, the vehicle may be ordered to be released to petitioner on Supurdgi.

¶19

Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court delivered in case of Sunderbahi Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283] as also on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the Rajasthan High Court delivered in case of Prakash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2010) 1 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 507] .

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of petitioner to release the vehicle on Supurdgi.

¶21

Having heard counsel for parties, this Court finds that during investigation in the FIR No.74/2020, the vehicle in question was seized and after completing the investigation, the criminal case is under trial. It is noticeable that the Public Prosecutor has not brought to notice of this Court about any order of confiscation in respect of vehicle in question. Petitioner has stated himself to be the registered owner and no rival claimant to take custody of vehicle came forward neither before the trial Court nor before this Court. Vehicle would certainly may damage in case it is allowed to continue to remain parked and unused. Therefore, this Court prima facie deems it just and proper as also expedient to release the vehicle in question in the interim custody of petitioner, however on certain conditions.

¶22

This Court finds support for its view by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) and the Coordinate Bench, in case of Prakash Chand (Supra), wherein

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:8962]

[CRLMP-7943/2022]

it has been held that the conditional release of the seized vehicle during course of criminal trial, should not be ordinarily denied.

¶27

As a result, the present criminal Misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.08.2022 is quashed and set aside. The vehicle in question is ordered to be released on “Supurdgi” to petitioner till completion of the criminal trial, but on following conditions:-

¶28

“(a) the petitioner furnishes a supurdgi in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the vehicle Motorcycle MP-14-NA-5719 in the Court as and when required to do so.

¶29

(b) the petitioner shall get the vehicle in question photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in 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 photographs of the petitioner and his sureties and the bond of sureties shall also carry photographs, identifying them before the Court with full residential particulars of sureties and persons identifying them.

¶31

(d) the petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question 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. However, the trial Court shall send a letter to the registering authority to make a remark in registration certificate regarding not to transfer the ownership of vehicle in question.

¶32

(e) the petitioner will not allow the vehicle in question to be used for any antisocial activities including for the purpose of carrying narcotics which may constitute offence under the NDPS Act.”

¶33

(SUDESH BANSAL), J

¶34

SOURAV /348

Jahid Khan S/O Ajab Khan, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahid Khan S/O Ajab Khan, 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

Smt. Moetya Devi W/O Shri Ram Swaroop Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Gulli Devi Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajesh Samota @ Raju Mota S/O Rameshwarlal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Pappu S/O Heera Lal Rao Vs State of Rajasthan

Nirmal Singh Vs State through Pp and Anr.

Rahees S/O Hakmuddin Vs State of Rajasthan