Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jasmel Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 January, 2022
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 167/2022
Jasmel Singh S/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Aged About 46 Years, B/c
Jat Sikh, R/o Falewal, P.s. Jodha, Dist. Ludhiyana (Punjab).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Thind, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
27/01/2022
By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 451 Cr.P.C. challenge has
been made to the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned
Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Misc. Case
No.62/2021 connected with Sessions Case No.30/2021 (arose out
of 61/2021) of Police Station Bijoliya, District Bhilwara, whereby
the application filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for releasing the
vehicle has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is the registered owner of the vehicle and there is no other
claimants. The vehicle was allegedly intercepted by police on
21.02.2020 and since then it is stationed in a open area of the
police station, its condition is deteriorating day by day and if it is
allowed to be stationed in open, it would be damaged by the effect
of climate and then certainly the same would cause huge loss to
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-167/2022]
the petitioner. He submits that until the trial is completed or any
proceedings for confiscation is not made; delivery of the vehicle
can be given to its registered owner as an interim custody. The
course of the trial would surely take long time to culminate, thus,
no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle lying in
open area for its further deterioration.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and
willing to furnish 'Supardginama' and would abide by the
condition, if any, imposed by this Court while delivering the
possession to the petitioner as an interim measure.
Indisputably, the petitioner is the registered owner of the
vehicle, there is no other claimant and the petitioner is the person
best entitled to get back the possession. Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in land mark judgment passed in Sunder Bai Amba Lal
Desai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in AIR 2003 SCC 638 has
observed that keeping the property in open for an indefinite
period, certainly causes losses to the person and to the Nation. As
it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) while handing
over custody to the claimant, certain caution can be adopted like
taking the colour photographs of the vehicle and by noting down
the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle.
In this view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to
release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner as an interim
custody, till the proceeding for confiscation is not initiated and
decided.
Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the
order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge,
NDPS Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.30/2021 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-167/2022]
It is directed that the vehicle in question may be released in
favour of the petitioner until disposal of the trial provided he
furnishes 'Supardginama' of Rs.7,00,000/- and one surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court Judge. The
caution and direction passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Sunder Bai Amba Lal Desai (supra) shall be followed
before actually handing over the vehicle.
The criminal misc. petition is disposed of, accordingly.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
71-Ravi Kh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
