Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalu Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 February, 2022
Bench: Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 85/2022
Kalu Khan S/o Nure Khan, Aged About 30 Years, Grand Son Of
Mehmood Khan, R/o Rd 854, Bagarsa, Tehsil Bajju, District
Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Zakir Hussain S/o Aamad Khan, Grand Son Of Sher
Mohammed, R/o Wad No. 2, Surasar, Karnisar Bhatiyan,
Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
For Complainant(s) : Mr. K.C. Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
17/02/2022
The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition
under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 27.01.2022
passed by learned Additional Judge, Gharsana, District
Sriganganagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.17/2021 pertaining to
FIR No.328/2021 registered at Police Station Gharsana, District
Sriganganagar. for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 25 of the
N.D.P.S. Act, whereby the prayer to release the seized Swift
Dezire Car No.RJ2CC-5633 on supurdaginama in favour of the
petitioner, has been rejected.
As per prosecution story, 25 Kgs of 'poppy straw' without
having any license or permit was recovered from the seized Swift
Dezire Car No.RJ2CC-5633 After investigation, the police found
(2 of 4) [CRLR-85/2022]
that Kalu Ram purchased the vehicle in question from respondent
No.2 Zakir Hussain S/o Aamad Khan.
Learned Public Prosecutor also does not dispute the above
fact.
The trial court has rejected the application filed under
Section 457 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking interim custody of
the subject vehicle on the ground of severity of offence and
possessing the narcotic substance by the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record as well the order impugned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for interim
custody of the subject vehicle submits that the petitioner is the
registered owner of the vehicle in question and therefore, he is
entitled for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned counsel for
the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case
of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in
(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.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the
order impugned passed by the trial court, prays for rejection of
the revision petition.
Having heard the rival submissions and perusal of the record,
in the considered opinion of this Court, the interim custody of the
vehicle alleged to be used in committing the offence of NDPS Act
cannot be denied on the ground of severity of offence. It is also
settled legal proposition of law that interim custody of the vehicle
(3 of 4) [CRLR-85/2022]
cannot be denied on the ground that it is liable to be confiscated,
in case the offence is proved against the accused. As per
prosecution story, Kalu Ram purchased the vehicle in question
from respondent No.2 Zakir Hussain S/o Aamad Khan.
Keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat
(supra), there is no reason to deny interim custody of the
vehicle to the owner or person entitled to get possession of the
vehicle. If the vehicle is allowed to be kept in the police station
for an indefinite period, then value of the vehicle shall be
diminished substantially and it may not remain in usable
condition. In the above circumstances, the prayer of the
petitioner deserves to be allowed.
Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 12.01.2022 passed by learned trial court is set aside
and Swift Dezire Car bearing registration No. RJ2CC-5633 is
ordered to be released on 'supurdagi' in favour of the petitioner till
completion of the trial on the following conditions:-
(a) the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the
sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.
1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court
undertaking to produce the vehicle aforesaid in the
Court as and when required to do so.
(b) the petitioner shall get the vehicle aforesaid
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.
(c) the personal bond 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, which is with full residential
particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying
them.
(4 of 4) [CRLR-85/2022]
(d) the petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the
ownership of the vehicle aforesaid and not to lease it to
anyone and not to make or allow any changes in it to
be made so as to make unidentifiable.
(e) the petitioner will not allow the vehicle aforesaid
to be used for any antisocial activities including for the
purpose of carrying narcotics which may constitute
offence under the N.D.P.S. Act.
(f) before releasing the vehicle the trial court shall
verify the original documents of the vehicle.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J
12-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
