Puneet Sharma Son Of Shri Dinesh ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2837 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

         S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2881/2022

Puneet Sharma Son Of Shri Dinesh Sharma, Resident Of A New
Colony, Purani Chungi, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer, District Ajmer
(Raj).
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Mohit Sharma
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

04/04/2022

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

praying therein that the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by Special

Judge N.D.P.S. Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, be set aside,

whereby the said court refused to release Vehicle bearing

registration No.RJ-01-TA-4074 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 case property of case FIR No.399/2021 registered at

Police Station Bagru, Jaipur City (West) for the offence under

Sections 8/20, 8/25, 8/29 NDPS Act.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-2881/2022]

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

Seema/77

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)