Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mehboob vs State on 7 September, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2483/2021
Mehboob S/o Ayyub Mansoori, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Madarpura, Mandsaur, P.s. And Dist. Mandsaur, M.p.
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
Mr. Deepak Menaria
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
07/09/2022
1. The petitioner has preferred this present petition praying
that the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by learned Special Judge,
NDPS Act Cases, Pratapgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.51/2020,
be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release the car
bearing registration No.RJ-27-CB-6261 (Swift) to the petitioner.
The said vehicle was seized in connection with FIR No.02/2020
registered at P.S. Dholapani, District Pratapgarh for the offence
under Sections 8/15, 25 of NDPS Act.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states at Bar that no
confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle in-question
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 vehicle should not be permitted to remain
parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not
(Downloaded on 08/09/2022 at 09:01:52 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2483/2021]
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 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."
3. Learned PP is not in a position to refute the above position.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
(Downloaded on 08/09/2022 at 09:01:52 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2483/2021]
of the case.
5. The registered owner has no objection for releasing the
vehicle in-question.
6. 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 04.09.2020, the present petition is
allowed and the trial court is directed to release car bearing
registration No.RJ-27-CB-6261 (Swift) on supardaginama in favour
of petitioner on usual conditions, which the trial court deems fit,
provided he furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs.3,50,000/- before
the trial court.
7. Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the
petitioner is a registered owner of the said vehicle.
8. This order shall not prejudice the case of the prosecution in
criminal trial.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
170-jitender/nirmala-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
