Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Chitarlal S/O Shrikishan vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:11563)
2024 Latest Caselaw 1612 Raj/2

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1612 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 6 March, 2024

Rajasthan High Court

Chitarlal S/O Shrikishan vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:11563) on 6 March, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Upman

Bench: Anil Kumar Upman

[2024:RJ-JP:11563]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1340/2024

Chitarlal S/o Shrikishan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Govindpura,
Police Station Chhipabarod, District Baran (Raj).
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Rajawat for Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

06/03/2024

1. By way of filing of the instant miscellaneous petition,

challenge has been made to the order dated 15.02.2024 passed

by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Chhabra, District Baran in

Supurdagi Application No.38/2024 (C.I.S. No. 38/2024) arising

out of FIR No.495/2023 registered at Chhabra, District Baran for

the offences under Sections 8/20 & 8/29 of NDPS Act whereby the

prayer made by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle in question

(motorcycle) bearing registration No. RJ-28-SN-3117 on supurdagi

has been declined.

2. 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.

He 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:11563] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1340/2024]

possession of the seized property. It is also submitted that there is

no other person claiming supurdagi of the same. He further

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.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the criminal

miscellaneous petition.

4. 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, these 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.

5. 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

valuable articles, currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and

narcotic drugs has been laid down therein.

6. 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

[2024:RJ-JP:11563] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1340/2024]

dated 15.02.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act,

Chhabra, District Baran in Supurdagi Application No.38/2024

(C.I.S. No. 38/2024) is quashed and set aside to the extent of

vehicle (motorcycle) and the learned court below is directed to

release the vehicle in question (motorcycle) bearing registration

No. RJ-28-SN-3117 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 that he shall not use the vehicle for any illegal and unlawful

purpose in future. He shall also produce the vehicle before learned

trial court as and when asked upon to do so.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

CHARU SONI /34

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter