Allowed

Sunita Devi W/O Shree Mangalram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 May 2024CRLR/585/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court considered the petitioner's application for release of a seized vehicle alleged to be used in an N.D.P.S. Act offence. The Court held that interim custody cannot be denied due to potential severity or confiscation. The order allowing release on 'surdagi' was modified to include specific undertakings and security requirements.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; vehicle released on 'surdagi' subject to furnishing security of Rs.3,00,000/-, documentation, and specific undertakings.

Sunita Devi W/O Shree Mangalram Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:23477]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 585/2024

¶4

Sunita Devi W/o Shree Mangalram, R/o 834, Kesar Machine Ke Pass, Jhalana Dungari Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur District Jaipur 302004

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶10

: Mr. Javed Mohd. Khan, Advocate : Mr. Yashwant Kankhedia, P.P.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order

¶12

17/05/2024 :

¶13

In compliance of order dt.08.04.2024 passed by this Court, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report regarding vehicle-in-question, which is taken on record.

¶14

Instant revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of petitioner against the impugned order dt.22.03.2024 passed by Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, in Criminal Misc. Application No.13/2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner to release vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire bearing registration No.RJ-45 CM 0410 seized in case/F.I.R. No.576/2022 registered at Police Station Harmada Jaipur (West) for commission of offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, has been rejected & the vehicle, in question on ‘ supurdgi ’ has not been released.

¶15

As per prosecution case, contraband article without having any license or permit was recovered from the vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire bearing registration No.RJ-45 CM 0410 of the petitioner.

[2024:RJ-JP:23477]

[CRLR-585/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle-in-question and, therefore, he is entitled for custody of the vehicle on ‘ supurdgi ’. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, learned counsel further contends, that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the Police Station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful. Counsel prays that the present petition may be allowed, the impugned order be quashed & set aside & the application filed by petitioner for releasing the vehicle-in-question on ‘ supurdgi ’ be also allowed.

¶20

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

¶21

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and have gone through all the material made available on record.

¶22

Having heard the rival submissions & perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the interim custody of the vehicle alleged to be used in committing the offence of N.D.P.S. Act cannot be denied on the ground of severity of offence. It is also settled legal proposition of law that interim custody of vehicle cannot be denied on the ground that it is liable to be confiscated, in case the offence is proved against the accused.

¶23

Furthermore, keeping in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), there is no reason to deny interim custody of vehicle to owner or person entitled to get possession of the vehicle. If the vehicle is allowed to be kept in the

[2024:RJ-JP:23477]

[CRLR-585/2024]

(3 of 3)

Police Station for an indefinite period, then value of vehicle shall be diminished substantially and it may not remain in usable condition.

¶28

Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed . The impugned order dt. 22.03.2024 passed by ld. trial Court is quashed & set aside and the vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire bearing registration No.RJ-45 CM 0410 is ordered to be released on ‘ supurdagi ’ in favour of the petitioner till completion of the trial on the following conditions:-

¶29

“(a) That the petitioner shall furnish a ‘ supurdgi ’ in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the vehicle aforesaid in the Court as and when required to do so.

¶30

(b) That 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.

¶31

(c) That the personal bond of the petitioner & bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of 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.

¶32

(d) That 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.

¶33

(e) That 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.

¶34

(f) That before releasing the vehicle, the trial Court shall verify the original documents of the vehicle.“

¶35

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶36

ASHOK/

Sunita Devi W/O Shree Mangalram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi W/O Shree Mangalram 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

Vijendra S/O Shri Dayachand B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Karan Singh Son of Shri Narayan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemant Gurjar S/O Sh. Surajmal Vs Nisha W/O Hemant Gurjar

Bhawani Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Satish Singhal Vs State

Nagina Bano W/O Sharif Khan Vs State of Rajasthan