SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Khurshid – Petitioner
versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.7517 of 2025
Decided on 2.12.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore
For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP

IMPORTANT POINT
Seizure of vehicle carrying narcotic drugs – Owner of vehicleis not entitled to get Supurdagi of vehicle.

Headnote:

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 8, 20 and 25 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 497 read with Section 503 – Seizure of vehicle – Rejection of application seeking Supurdagi of seized vehicle – Petitioner is owner of vehicle in question and contraband has been recovered from said vehicle for which petitioner is claiming himself as owner – Petitioner is not entitled to get Supurdagi of vehicle – No illegality in impugned order passed by Court below – Impugned order affirmed. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)

Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The petitioner, as the registered owner, seeks supurdagi (release) of a seized vehicle bearing No. DL-3-CBV-6509, after contraband was recovered from the vehicle (!) . - The case discusses NDPS Act offences (Sections 8, 20 & 25) and the seizure of 52 kg 267 gms of ganja from the vehicle, with the petitioner charged as an accused (!) . - The Hon’ble Apex Court Bishwajit Dey laid out four scenarios for seizure/release; first two scenarios involve the owner or owner’s agent, where release on supurdagi is typically not allowed until reverse burden is discharged (!) (!) . - In the third and fourth scenarios (vehicle stolen or contraband seized from a third-party occupant), the vehicle may be released on supurdagi, with conditions (bond to produce vehicle or pay value) (!) (!) . - The petitioner’s case falls under the first scenario (owner as accused with contraband recovered from the vehicle) and thus is not entitled to supurdagi; the impugned order was not illegal (!) (!) . - The court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the criminal misc. petition, with stay and pending applications also dismissed (!) (!) . - The record confirms the vehicle was inspected, contraband recovered from it, and the petitioner is an accused in FIR No.81/2024; no entitlement to release on supurdagi under these facts (!) . - The court references that there is no illegality in the lower court’s order and supports denial of supurdagi given the owner’s status as accused and contraband recovered from the vehicle (!) .

How to determine the entitlement to Supurdagi of a seized vehicle when the owner is also the accused and contraband is recovered from the vehicle?

What is the applicable four-scenario framework for releasing or not releasing a seized vehicle on supurdagi as per Bishwajit Dey (Supra) and its interpretation in this case?

What are the court’s findings regarding the petitioner's entitlement to supurdagi given that the contraband was recovered from the owner's vehicle and the owner is an accused?


JUDGMENT (ORDER)

By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 497 read with Section 503 BNSS, 2023 seeking supurdagi of the seized subject vehicle bearing No.DL-3-CBV-6509, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR No.81/2024 was registered with Police Station Badodamev, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 8, 20 & 25 of the NDPS Act, wherein the subject vehicle in question was seized and the petitioner is the registered owner of the subject vehicle. Learned counsel submits that now investigation is completed and the subject vehicle is not required for the purpose of investigation, therefore, the subject vehicle in question be released on supurdagi. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepu Vs. State of Rajasthan through P.P. reported in 2024 (2) Cri.L.R. (Raj.) 751 and Devigan Urf Degen Verman Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2021(1) Cri.L.R. (Raj.) 252.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that huge quantity of contraband, i.e., 52 kg 267 gms of Ganja has been recovered from the subject vehicle in question and the petitioner is the registered owner of the subject vehicle and he has been arrayed as an accused in the aforesaid FIR. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get the supurdagi of the subject vehicle in question and the Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that an FIR bearing No.81/2024 was registered with Police Station Badodamev, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 8, 20 & 25 of the NDPS Act, wherein it has been alleged that on inspection of Swift Dzire Car bearing No.DL-3-CBV-6509, 52 kg 267 gms of Ganja was recovered and the petitioner has been charge-sheeted along-with co-accused persons for the above stated offences. Though the petitioner is claiming himself as the registered owner of the subject vehicle. However, now the question before this Court is whether the vehicle in question can be released on supurdagi simply on the ground that the petitioner is a registered owner.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam (Criminal Appeal No.87/2025) decided on 07.01.2025 has formulated four scenarios and it has been held that if the vehicle is found to be involved in the first and second scenarios, it cannot be released and if the vehicle is found to be involved in third and four scenarios, appropriate orders can be passed by the Court for releasing the same on ‘Supurdagi’ and it has been held in para 29 and 30 as under:-

“29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner’s knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top