Rakesh Kumar Bharti vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 1293 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1293 Raj
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rakesh Kumar Bharti vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 February, 2023

Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 59/2023

Rakesh Kumar Bharti S/o Gourishankar, Aged About 35 Years, R/ o Ward No. 18 Choprawali Gali, Near Shiv Chowk, Sirsa, Haryana Through Power Of Attorney Holder Lokendra Singh S/o Shishpal Singh, B/c Rajput, Aged 27 Years, R/o Udasar Bada, P.s. Khuinya District Hanumangarh.

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


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Sunil Vishnoi
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Anees Bhurat, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

                                       Order

03/02/2023

The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition

under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 09.01.2023

passed by learned Special Judge NDPS Cases, Bikaner in Cr. Misc.

Case No.236/2022 pertaining to FIR No. 98/2022 registered at

Police Station Chhatargarh, District Bikaner for the offences under

Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, whereby the

prayer to release the seized Swift Dzire Car bearing No.HR-76-B-

6412 (hereinafter referred to as vehicle in question) on

supurdaginama in favour of the petitioner, has been rejected.

As per prosecution story, 20kg poppy straw without having

any license or permit was recovered from the said vehicle in

question. After investigation, the police found that petitioner was

owner of the said vehicle.

(2 of 4) [CRLR-59/2023]

The trial court has rejected the application filed under

Section 457 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking interim custody of

the vehicle in question on the ground of severity of offence and on

the ground that narcotic substance was recovered from the

possession of 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 vehicle in question submits that the petitioner is

registered owner of the said vehicle, and therefore, he is entitled

to obtain 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 present revision petition.

Having heard the rival submissions and on 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 cannot be denied on the ground that it is liable to be

confiscated, in case the offence is proved against the accused. As

(3 of 4) [CRLR-59/2023]

per prosecution story, the petitioner is the registered owner of the

said vehicle.

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 the 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 09.01.2023 passed by learned trial court is set aside

and Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No. HR-76-B-6412 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. 3,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 1,50,000/- 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.

(d) the petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle aforesaid and not to lease it to

(4 of 4) [CRLR-59/2023]

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.