Trilochan Singh S/O Baljeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

By way of filing this revision petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed by Special Judge NDPS Cases and Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kekri District Ajmer in Criminal Misc. Case No.56/2024 by which the order of supurdaginama passed in favour of the petitioner for release of vehicle, i.e., Creta Car bearing registration No.PB-04-Z-1311 has been cancelled, and a direction has been issued to detain the aforesaid vehicle.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle in question was purchased by the petitioner by way of an agreement to sell and in the meantime the same was seized by the Police connection with the FIR No.120/2024 registered at Police Station Bhinai District Kekri for the offences under Section 8 & 18 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel submits that an application was

¶15

[2025:RJ-JP:41089]

¶16

[CRLR-1373/2025]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

submitted by the petitioner under Section 497 of BNSS for releasing of the aforesaid vehicle before the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases and Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kekri District Ajmer and the same was allowed with certain terms and conditions directing the petitioner to produce registration certificate of the aforesaid vehicle before the Court within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order and it was observed that in case the petitioner fails to produce it before the said Court, the supurdaginama shall stand cancelled and the personal bond & amount of sureties submitted by the petitioner shall stand forfeited.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after passing of the aforesaid order, the vehicle in question was transferred in favour of the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority and registration was reflected online, but the physical card of the same was not provided to the petitioner on account of inter se dispute between the State of Punjab and the Contractor. Learned counsel submits that, hence under these circumstances, a physical card of the registration certificate could not be produced before the Court below and in that eventuality, the order impugned has been passed by which the supurdaginama of the vehicle has been cancelled and a direction has been issued to deposit the physical Registration Certificate with the concerned Police Station. Learned counsel submits that now the petitioner has obtained the physical copy of the Registration Certificate, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

[2025:RJ-JP:41089]

[CRLR-1373/2025]

(3 of 3)

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that unless the physical copy of the Registration Certificate is duly verified by the Transport Department, the petitioner is not entitled to receive the supurdaginama of the vehicle in question and the revision petition is liable to be rejected.

¶24

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶25

Considering the aforesaid narrated facts by counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that during pendency of the revision petition and after passing of the order impugned, the petitioner has obtained the physical card of the Registration Certificate in his favour.

¶26

In view of the above, this Court deems it just and proper to remit this matter to the Trial Court for passing fresh order after getting verification of the physical Registration Certificate of the petitioner from the concerned Transport Department.

¶27

Accordingly, the revision petition stands disposed of. The order dated 08.07.2025 passed by Special Judge NDPS Cases and Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kekri District Ajmer stands quashed and set-aside.

¶28

Needless to observe that fresh order would be passed by the Trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶29

For a period of four weeks, the Trial Court should not insist on the petitioner to deposit the vehicle.

¶30

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶31

Karan/50

Trilochan Singh S/O Baljeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trilochan Singh S/O Baljeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saddam Ansari @ Naeem S/O Abdul Haq Vs State of Rajasthan

Govind Singh Vs State

Mangi Lal Vs State and Ors.

Arti Wife of Dinesh Vs State of Rajastahn

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Dhanna Lal Jat Son of Shri Hari Narayan

Smt Anita Sansi W/O Shree Vikas Sansi Vs State of Rajasthan