Nirmal Singh S/O Sh Jora Singh S/O ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3146 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1743/2021

Nirmal Singh S/o Sh Jora Singh S/o Sh. Arjun Singh, R/o
Mishrivala, Morwali District Faridkot Through Power Of Attorney
Sh. Gajendra Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh Sikh R/o Mandwala
Post-Durgaud, Faridkot (Punjab).
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

26/07/2021

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

praying therein that the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by

Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kekri, be set aside,

whereby the said court refused to release Scorpio vehicle No.PB-

04-Z-1883 to the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that

petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle in question.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that

no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle and the

same is a case property of case FIR No.167/2018 registered at

Police Station Sarvad, Ajmer, for the offence under Section 8 and

15 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-1743/2021]

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

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.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /144

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)