Rajasthan High Court
Satish Jayaswal Son Of Ramcharan vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 July, 2021
Bench: Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 656/2021
Satish Jayaswal Son Of Ramcharan, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of Bhawani, Police Station Aandhi, District Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shantanu Bansal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Order
30/07/2021
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed
against the order dated 9.4.2021 passed by the learned Special
Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur-I whereby, the
application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 451 read
with Section 457 Cr.P.C for releasing the Motorcycle No.RJ-14-JK-
1672 has been dismissed.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle there is no
other rival claim for its release. Relying on the judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases 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,
(2 of 3) [CRLR-656/2021]
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, learned counsel submitted that vehicle be given to
the petitioner on furnishing 'supurdginama'.
Opposing the prayer, learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that vehicle in question was used 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, which has not been done in the
present case.
In these circumstances, this criminal miscellaneous
petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The
order dated 9.4.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS
Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur-I is quashed and set aside. It is
directed that the Motorcycle No.RJ-14-JK-1672 be released in
favour of the petitioner on 'supurdginama' on his producing
(3 of 3) [CRLR-656/2021]
original registration certificate and on satisfying following
conditions:-
(1) He furnishes a personal 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 init to be made so as to make
unidentifiable.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J
Dheeraj/52
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
