[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shahid Alias Bablu Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:52217) on 3 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:52217]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1066/2025
Shahid Alias Bablu Khan S/o Shri Akaram Khan, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Marwar Junction, Police Station - Marwar, District -
Pali, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Puna Ram Sen for
Mr. Vijay Kumar Gaur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
03/12/2025
The present criminal revision petition under Section 438/442
BNSS has been filed by the petitioner to assail the impugned order
dated 07.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act
Cases, Pratapgarh whereby the application under Section 503
BNSS, moved by the petitioner for releasing/handing over the
mobile phone i.e. Vivo X 90 bearing IMEI No.862814068498113,
862814068498105 on 'supurdgi' has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet
in this case has already been presented and the mobile phone in
question is unnecessarily lying in the police custody and the same
may get damaged. Hence, it is prayed that the mobile phone in
question may be released on 'Supardginama'.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his
arguments, has placed reliance on a decision of the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court rendered at Jaipur Bench in Prakash Chand
Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010(1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 507.
In the aforesaid judgment, the vehicle and other articles were
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 06:03:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52217] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1066/2025]
seized from the accused for carrying contraband of small quantity
just above the commercial quantity. It is in that background, the
Court has acceded to the prayer of the incumbent and recorded its
finding that solely for the reason that the vehicle and other
articles are likely to be confiscated after trial, conditional release
of the vehicle and other articles on Supurdginama and surety
cannot be denied and interim custody of the vehicle and other
articles can be granted to the incumbent on certain conditions.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283 and
co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in case of Prakash
Chand (supra) has held that conditional release of the vehicle
cannot be denied.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs.
State of Assam reported in 2025 3 SCC 241 has observed
that :-
27. Though the risk of misuse by the accused or third party of the
same plane or bus or ship cannot be ruled out, yet the Courts do not
take coercive action on the basis of fear or suspicion or hypothetical
situation.
28. Undoubtedly, the Vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence
that may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution's
case, yet the said requirement can be met by stipulating conditions
while releasing the Vehicle in interim on superdari like videography
and still photographs to be authenticated by the Investigating
Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the said
inventory as well as restriction on sale/transfer of the Vehicle.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer
made by the counsel for the petitioner and prays for dismissal of
the revision petition.
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 06:03:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52217] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1066/2025]
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed and the
order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the trial court is hereby
quashed to the extent of refusing to release the mobile phone in
question on 'supurdgi' and it is ordered that the mobile phone i.e.
Vivo X 90 be released on 'supardgi' till the completion of the trial
upon following conditions:-
(a) the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of
Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court
undertaking to produce the mobile phone in question
in the Court as and when required to do so.
(b) the petitioner shall get the mobile phone
photographed and such photograph shall be taken in
the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept
on the file of the case.
(c) the personal bonds of the petitioner and bonds
of sureties shall carry the photographs of the
petitioner and his/her/their sureties and the bond of
sureties shall further carry the photograph 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 sell mobile
phone in question to anyone and not to make or
allow any changes to be made so as to make
unidentifiable.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
5-mSingh/-
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 06:03:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
