Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roshan Kanojia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16629
1 CRR-566-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 4 th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 566 of 2025
ROSHAN KANOJIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Raunak Yadav - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Shailendra Mishra - Dy. Govt. Advocate for State.
ORDER
This is a revision against the order dated 30-01-2025 passed by Special
Judge (NDPS Act), Katni by which an application filed by the applicant for
release of his vehicle i.e. Scorpio bearing registration No.MP-20-ZN-2888
on Supurdginama has been declined.
2. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid
vehicle has been seized by the prosecution on the allegation that it was
involved in transportation of illicit contraband. It is contended by the
counsel that the vehicle in question is in police custody and the same is being
deteriorated. No fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle in
custody. The present applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle in
question and, therefore, he moved an application for release of the same on
his supurdginama, but the Court below has declined to accept the application
while observing that the vehicle is subject-matter of confiscation
proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16629
2 CRR-566-2025
3. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that there is no
proceeding regarding confiscation of the vehicle in question and hence, the
applicant being the legitimate owner of the vehicle is entitled for release of
the same on his supurdginama.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that in view of the law
laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of
Gujrat (2002) 10 SCC 283, the order impugned deserves to be set aside and
the vehicle in question be released in favour of the applicant.
5. Per contra, the counsel for the State submits that as the case has
been registered against the applicant under the provisions of the NDPS Act
and therefore, it would not be conducive and proper to release the vehicle in
question.
6. Having heard the rival submissions, it is undisputable so far as the
present petitioner is concerned, against him, no case under the NDPS Act has
been registered. The applicant has further placed on record copies of the
relevant documents pertaining to his ownership of the vehicle in question.
7. The Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai (supra) has held in
paragraph 17 as under:-
"17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep
such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is
for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by
taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for
return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This
can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such
vehicles."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16629
3 CRR-566-2025
8. Accordingly, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is squarely
applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the impugned order
passed by the Court below deserves to be quashed.
9 . It is directed that the seized vehicle (Scorpio) bearing registration
No. MP-20-ZN-2888 shall be handed over to the applicant on
Supurdginama, subject to producing the original registration certificate and
further on satisfying the following conditions :-
(i) That, the applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) for the aforesaid vehicle,
with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court on an undertaking to produce the said vehicle before the
trial Court as and when required.
(ii) That, the applicant shall get the vehicle photographed
showing the registration number as well as the chassis number.
Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the responsible
officer, who will be deputed by the trial court and to be kept in the
file of the case.
(iii) That, the personal bond of the applicant as well as
surety shall carry the photographs of both and the bond of surety
shall further carry the photograph of person identifying him before
the Court which would be with full residential proof of the surety
and the person identifying him.
(iv) The applicant shall undertake not to transfer the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16629
4 CRR-566-2025
ownership of the vehicle and not to lease it to any one and not to
alienate or create any third party interest and not to make or allow
any changes in it to be made so as to make identifiable.
(v) The applicant will not allow the vehicle to be used for
any anti-social activities.
(vi) In the event of confiscation order by the Court
competent, the applicant shall produce the vehicle positively for
confiscation.
10. With the aforesaid, the present revision petition stands allowed. A
copy of this order be forwarded to the trial Court/Authority concerned for
necessary compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
