Rajasthan High Court
Hussain Mohammad S/O Gulab Khan By ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 January, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3421/2019
Hussain Mohammad S/o Gulab Khan R/o Ward No. 12, Deipole
Chunginaka, Nainwa District Bundi (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dushyan Singh Naruka
For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, P.P.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, S.I. Police
Station, Nainwa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
27/01/2021
Despite repeated directions of this Court to the learned
Public Prosecutor to procure the report from the Investigating
Officer as to whether confiscation proceedings have been initiated
regarding the seized motor-cycle or not, the learned Public
Prosecutor has failed to produce any such report for perusal of the
Court. In these circumstances, this Court proceeds to decide this
criminal miscellaneous petition assuming that no such confiscation
proceedings have been initiated.
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed against
the order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the Special Judge N.D.P.S.
Cases, Bundi whereby, the application filed by the accused-
petitioner under Section 451/457 of CrPC for releasing the motor-
cycle, has been dismissed.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-3421/2019]
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
he is registered owner of the motor-cycle and there is no other
rival claim for its release. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court of India in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs.
State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 290 and Coordinate Bench
Judgments dated 14.08.2012 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition No.2682/2012, Phool Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
and in cases of Bal Mikand vs. State, 1994 Cri Lr (Raj) 4,
Prakash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No.416/2010 decided on 12.03.2010
& Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No.61/2018 decided on 16.04.2018,
submitted that vehicle be given to the petitioner on furnishing
'supurdginama'.
Opposing the prayer, learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that vehicle in question was used by the petitioner for commission
of offence under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity "the Act of 1985")
and can be subject-matter of confiscation under Section 60 of the
Act of 1985 and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for release of
the vehicle in his favour.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
It is undisputed that petitioner is registered owner of the
vehicle in question which has not been claimed by any other
person. Now, it is no more res integra that vehicle seized under
the provisions of the Act of 1985 can be released in favour of its
registered owner; though, may be an accused, if no order of
confiscation has been passed.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-3421/2019]
In these circumstances, this criminal miscellaneous petition
deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order
dated 22.04.2019 passed by the Special Judge N.D.P.S., Bundi is
quashed and set aside. It is directed that motor-cycle No. RJ08 SS
9966 be released in favour of the petitioner on 'supurdginama' on
his producing original registration certificate and on satisfying
following conditions:-
(1) He furnishes a person bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to
the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to
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 bonds 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 any one and not to make or allow any changes in
it to be made so as to make unidentifiable.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/56
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
