Rajasthan High Court
Devigan Urf Degen Verman Son Of ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 February, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 47/2021
Devigan Urf Degen Verman Son Of Shri Basanta Verman,
Resident Of Kalpani, Police Station Pundibadi, Couch Bihar, West
Bangal (Raj.).
----Accused/Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
18/02/2021
In pursuance of direction of this Court, learned Public
Prosecutor submits that confiscation of the vehicle in question has
not been made till date.
This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC
has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.11.2020 passed by
learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I whereby
the application filed by the petitioner for release of vehicle on
'supurdgi', has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is registered owner of two wheeler vehicle, i.e., a Scooty bearing
Registration No.RJ14-WH-3066. He contended that his application
for release of vehicle on 'supurdgi' has been dismissed by the
learned trial Court on the premise that the vehicle was used in
commission of offence under the provision of the NDPS Act, 1985
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-47/2021]
(for brevity "the Act of 1985") and there is probability of
confiscation of the vehicle in question. Learned counsel for the
petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in case of Rekha
Soni vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition No.733/2020 decided on 09.02.2021, submitted that
the reasonings assigned for rejecting his prayer are not tenable
and prayed for release of the vehicle.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this criminal
miscellaneous petition.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
It is undisputed that the petitioner is registered owner of the
vehicle in question which has not been claimed by any other
person. It is settled law that the vehicle seized under the provision
of the Act of 1985 can be released in favour of the registered
owner, though, he may be an accused also therein, if no order of
confiscation has been passed. In the present case, as apprised by
learned Public Prosecutor, no confiscation order has been passed
till date qua the vehicle in question.
In these circumstances, this criminal miscellaneous petition
deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order
dated 02.11.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS
Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I is quashed and set aside. It is
directed that the vehicle bearing No.RJ14-WH-3066 be released in
favour of the petitioner on 'supurdginama' on his producing
original registration certificate and on satisfying following
conditions:-
(1) He furnishes a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of Rs.12,500/- each to
the satisfaction of the trial Court with undertaking to
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-47/2021]
produce the vehicle in question in the Court as and
when required to do so.
(2) He shall get the vehicle in question 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.
(3) The personal bond of the petitioner and bonds of
sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner
and his sureties and the bond of sureties shall further
carry the photographs of persons identifying them
before the Court with full residential particulars of the
sureties and the persons identifying them.
(4) 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.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
PRAGATI/42
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
