Rajasthan High Court
Raheesh Khan Son Of Amardeen vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:17401) on 15 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:17401]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2002/2024
Raheesh Khan Son Of Amardeen, Aged About 31 Years, Resident
Of Village Ramnagar, Post Gogora, Tehsil Weir, Police Station
Bhusawar, At Present Tenant At House No. -4, Ajhar Colony,
Jaysinghpura Khor, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avtar Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
15/04/2024
By way of instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the order dated 07.11.2023
passed by Special Judge NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in
Criminal Misc. Application No.512/2023 arising out of FIR
No.495/2022 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, District
Jaipur City (North) for the offence punishable under Section 8/21
of the NDPS Act whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for
releasing the vehicle in question (motorcycle) bearing registration
No. RJ14-JU-5531 on supurdagi has been declined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is the registered owner of the vehicle in question which has been
seized by the Police Officers in connection with the aforesaid FIR.
Counsel submits that the petitioner being the registered owner of
the vehicle in question, is the person best entitled to get back the
[2024:RJ-JP:17401] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2002/2024]
possession of the seized property. It is also submitted that there is
no other person claiming supurdagi of the same. He contends that
the learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioner on
the ground that the seized vehicle is liable to be confiscated in
view of Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act. However, that cannot be a
sole ground to deny custody to the petitioner. He submits that the
vehicle in question is presently stationed unused at the police
station and soon it would become junk. He placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC
638.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the criminal
miscellaneous petition.
The purport of the case law cited by learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be
exercised expeditiously. The reason being that owner of the article
should not suffer because of it remaining unused and the police
should not be required to keep the article in safe custody. Apart
from this, the seized vehicles which in a wider sense, are national
property, would not be allowed to become junk day by day. It has
been further laid down in the aforecited case law that while giving
custody of the article, the article should be released on proper
security.
Furthermore, in the aforecited precedent law, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that the court should pass appropriate orders
immediately and the articles should not be kept for a long time at
the police station, and the procedure for disposal of the seized
[2024:RJ-JP:17401] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2002/2024]
valuable articles, currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and
narcotic drugs has been laid down therein.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforecited case
law, the present misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 07.11.2023 passed by Special Judge NDPS Cases, Jaipur
Metropolitan-I, in Criminal Misc. Application No.512/2023 is
quashed and set aside and the learned court below is directed to
release the vehicle in question (motorcycle) bearing registration
No. RJ14-JU-5531 to the petitioner provided he furnishes a
Supurdaginama of Rs. 50,000/- and surety of like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner shall furnish an
undertaking to the court below that he shall not sell, transfer or
alienate the vehicle in question without permission of the court
and produce the same before the court below as and when called
upon to do so. It is also made clear that he shall not use the
vehicle for any illegal and unlawful purpose in future.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
GAUTAM JAIN /70
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
