Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gurpreet Singh Chahal vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 481/2022
Gurpreet Singh Chahal S/o Gamdur Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
Vill. Khiyala Khurd, Dist. Mansa, Punjab.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
04/07/2022
The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition
praying that the impugned order dated 19.04.2022 passed by
learned Special Judge, Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic
Substance Act, Bikaner arising out of FIR No.27/2022 registered
at Police Station Gajner, Bikaner be set aside and spent earth be
released in favour of the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner states at Bar that no
confiscation proceedings are pending qua the spent earth and the
same is case property. 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 article should not be permitted to remain in the police
station and shall not remain useful. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Sunderbhai (Supra) has held as under:-
"15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the
State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police
(Downloaded on 05/07/2022 at 08:39:29 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-481/2022]
station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and
vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that
appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrate who
are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to
its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are
seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the
return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any
point of time.
16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the
person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a
matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by
the concerned persons.
17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to
keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long
period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders
immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as
well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at
any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of
applications for return of such vehicles.
18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused,
owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then
such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If
the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then
insurance company be informed by the Court to take
possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or
a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession
the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The
Court would pass such order within a period of six months
from the date of production of the said vehicle before the
Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such
vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should
be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."
Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to refute the
above position. Learned Public Prosecutor has shown the report,
where the investigating officer has opined that if the same is
released, there is no objection. The report is taken is taken on
record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case.
(Downloaded on 05/07/2022 at 08:39:29 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-481/2022]
Thus, relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and order passed by
this Court in Pannaram Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal
Revision Petition No.439/2020) decided on 29.06.2020 and Amra
Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No.1657/2020)
decided on 02.08.2021, the present revision petition is allowed
and the trial court is directed to release the spent earth on
supardaginama in favour of petitioner on usual conditions, which
the trial court deems fit, provided he furnishes a bank guarantee
of Rs.2,00,000/- before the trial court.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
19-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
