Rajasthan High Court
Jitendra S/O Shri Dhanraj vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 2021
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1348/2020
Jitendra S/o Shri Dhanraj, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village
Dada, P.S. Dawai, Distt. Baran Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment / Order
15/01/2021
The present petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated
20.11.2020 passed by Special Judge N.D.P.S., Chhabbra, District
Baran (Rajasthan) be set aside, whereby the said court refused to
release Motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-28-ST-1106 and
Mobile VIVO Company Y-17 with Airtel SIM to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that
petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle and Mobile VIVO
Company Y-17 with Airtel SIM in question.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that
no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle and
Mobile VIVO Company Y-17 with Airtel SIM and the same is case
property of case FIR No.349/2020 registered at Police Station
Chhipabarod, District Baran, for the offence under Section 8/20 of
NDPS Act.
(2 of 2) [CRLR-1348/2020]
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10
SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the
vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police
station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful.
Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), present petition is
allowed and the trial court is directed to release the vehicle seized
and Mobile VIVO Company Y-17 with Airtel SIM as case property
by imposing following conditions:-
a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released intact and
shall not change their identification.
b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when trial
court requires the same for proposed identification of the case
property.
c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/indemnity
bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial
court.
(d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other conditions
in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety bonds to be
furnished by the petitioner and sureties, which it may deem fit.
Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the
petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle and Mobile VIVO
Company Y-17 with Airtel SIM.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Seema/90
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
