Back
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Khurshid – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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 (!) .
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) C
Seizure of vehicle carrying narcotic drugs – Owner of vehicleis not entitled to get Supurdagi of vehicle.
A vehicle seized under the NDPS Act can be released to its registered owner if no confiscation order has been issued, provided ownership is substantiated.
A vehicle used in an NDPS Act offence can be released on superdari even if the applicant is not the registered owner, provided effective ownership is established.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
