Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohit Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:35701) on 11 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:35701]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6033/2025
Mohit Singh S/o Sabha Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Mansarovar Society, Chhatral, Kalol, District Gandhi Nagar
(Gujarat)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RJ Punia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh,PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
11/08/2025
1. By way of filing the present criminal miscellaneous petition,
the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order
dated 04.07.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS
Cases (Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1), Barmer, in
Criminal Misc. Case No.79/2025 (CIS No.97/2025 & Sessions Case
No.35/2024) in FIR No.178/2023, P.S. Sadar Barmer, District
Barmer, and for releasing the vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-
18-BK-3666 to the petitioner on superdari.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283 was
pleased to hold that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain
parked for a long period of time in the police station as the same
shall gather rust and shall not remain useful thereupon. Learned
counsel therefore submits that the impugned order dated
[2025:RJ-JD:35701] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-6033/2025]
04.07.2025 whereby the prayer for release of vehicle in favour of
the petitioner was refused, deserves to be set aside.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on
behalf of the petitioner for release of the vehicle.
4. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat
reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283, the present petition is allowed
and the learned trial Court is directed to release the vehicle
(Mahindra Scorpio) bearing registration No. GJ-18-BK-3666 which
has been seized as case property, by imposing the following
conditions:-
a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released
intact and shall not change its identification;
b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when
required by the trial court for proposed identification of the
case property;
c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdginama/
indemnity bond and two sureties bond to the satisfaction of
the trial court, and
d) The trial court is empowered to impose any other
conditions in the Supurdginama/indemnity bond and surety
bonds to be fulfilled by the petitioner, which it may deem fit.
5. Needless to say, the trial court shall first verify that the
petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question before
releasing the same.
6. Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed.
The factual report furnished by learned Public Prosecutor is taken
on record.
7. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
281-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
