Mangi Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14750 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1524/2022

Mangi Lal S/o Shri Bhagirath Ram, Aged About 50 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Ranera Bas, Gusaisar, Tehsil And District Bikaner (Raj.) Power Of Attorney Holder Of Shri Om Prakash S/o Mana Ram, B/ c Jat, R/o 461 East Part, Ward No. 06, Gusaisar, Tehsil And District Bikaner (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amerdeep Lamba For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

15/12/2022

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public

prosecutor for the State.

By way of filing of the instant revision petition, challenge has

been made to the order dated 28.6.2022 passed by the learned

Special Judge, Bikaner (Addl. Sessions Judge, No.1 Bikaner) in

Criminal Misc. Case No. 145/2022 arising out of FIR No. 14/2022

Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner, rejecting an application

preferred by the petitioner under Sections 451/457 Cr.P.C. for

release of the vehicle Boloro Camper No. RJ07-GA-7126 seized by

the police for offences under Sections 8/15, 25,29 of the NDPS

Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has

purchased the vehicle in question from its registered owner Om

Prakash by way of an agreement, however, registration could not

be effected in his favour. Pursuant to the directions issued by this

Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted an affidavit

of the registered owner Om Prakash dated 12.12.2022 stating

(2 of 2) [CRLR-1524/2022]

therein that the vehicle in question is registered in his name which

was sold to the present petitioner by way of an agreement and he

has no objection if the vehicle in question is released in his favour

of the petitioner. The affidavit is taken on record. Learned counsel

submits that since the petitioner has purchased the vehicle in

question from its registered owner and he has no objection if the

vehicle in question is released in his favour, therefore, he is

entitled to get back the possession of the same. There is no other

person claiming supurdagi of the vehicle in question. Learned

counsel also submits that the trial of the case will take a long time

and the vehicle in question would be deteriorated if allowed to

remain in Police Station premises.

Learned public prosecutor opposed the criminal revision

petition.

Considering the submissions and following the judgment

rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in

AIR 2003 SC 638 and the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2005/2022 [SLP

(Crl.) No. 7280/2022) titled as Sainaba Vs. The State of Kerala

& Anr., wherein, the vehicle involved in a crime underNDPS Act

was directed by the Special Court, the revision petition is allowed

and this Court deems it just and appropriate to release the vehicle

in question in favour of the petitioner on interim custody till

conclusion of the trial provided he furnishes a Supurdaginama of

Rs. 4,00,000/- and surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the

Court below.

(FARJAND ALI),J 43-Arti/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)