Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
P.K. Lohra, J.
RAJU RAM - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1400 of 2017
Decided On : 11-05-2017
{'KEYWORD': 'NDPS Act - Release of Vehicle - Section 452 Cr.P.C.', 'SUBJECT': 'Release of Vehicle Seized Under NDPS Act', 'ACT SECTION LIST': 'Section 452 Cr.P.C., Section 8/21 NDPS Act, Section 25 NDPS Act, Section 29 NDPS Act, Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.'}
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's vehicle was seized by police for allegedly carrying contraband. After acquittal of two accused persons in the NDPS Act case, the petitioner sought release of the vehicle under Section 452 Cr.P.C. The trial court rejected the prayer, citing pending further investigation against one accused under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court erred in not exercising its discretion to release the vehicle under Section 452 Cr.P.C. in view of the acquittal of the two accused persons. The court relied on a judgment of a coordinate bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, which held that conditional release of a vehicle seized for carrying a small quantity of contraband above the commercial quantity can be granted on Supurdgi.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's prayer for release of the vehicle under Section 452 Cr.P.C. despite the acquittal of the two accused persons in the NDPS Act case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court should have exercised its discretion to release the vehicle under Section 452 Cr.P.C. in view of the acquittal of the two accused persons. The court relied on the judgment in Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, which held that conditional release of a vehicle seized for carrying a small quantity of contraband above the commercial quantity can be granted on Supurdgi.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the release of the vehicle on adequate bond and sureties subject to the conditions mentioned in Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The trial court has the discretion to release a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act on Supurdgi, even if further investigation is ongoing against one of the accused persons, particularly when the accused have been acquitted in the main case (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the acquittal of some accused persons can be a relevant factor in exercising the discretion to release the vehicle, especially when the vehicle was seized for carrying a small quantity of contraband above the commercial quantity (!) .
The order for release of the vehicle can be subject to certain conditions, including furnishing adequate bonds and sureties, and undertaking not to transfer ownership or use the vehicle for unlawful activities (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The order of the trial court rejecting the release on the grounds of pending further investigation was found to be in error, and the court directed the release of the vehicle on appropriate bonds and conditions (!) .
The court relied on prior judgments that support the conditional release of vehicles seized under NDPS for small quantities of contraband, reinforcing the principle that such vehicles should not be automatically confiscated pending trial (!) .
The petitioner’s application for release was ultimately granted, and the impugned order was quashed, allowing the vehicle to be released on bond and surety, subject to the specified conditions (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
P.K. Lohra, J.
Failure of petitioner before Court below, in his pursuit for release of vehicle in connection with FIR No.75/2013 of Police Station Osian, District Jodhpur, has prompted him to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. The facts, in brief, are that pursuant to FIR aforesaid, after investigation, police arrested Hajari Ram and Sunil and submitted charge sheet under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act before Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The trial Court proceeded with trial and framed charges against accused persons for offence under Section 8/21 read with Section 25 and Section 8/21 read with section 29 of the NDPS Act. Upon conclusion of the trial, both the accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial Court by its judgment dated 3rd of April, 2017. As the vehicle Scorpio YIX, white in colour with Engine No.MXD4D23257 and Chassis No.D2D47105, owned by the petitioner, is seized by the police for allegedly carrying contraband, after conclusion of the trial, petitioner made endeavour for release of the vehicle before learned trial Court but the learned trial Court by its order dated 26th of April 2017 has rejected his prayer precisely by citing the reason that further investigation is pending against one accused Yusuf alias Lal under Section 178(3). It is also observed by the learned trial Court in the impugned order that while passing the verdict of acquittal, the Court has not passed any order for release of the vehicle therefore, it is not desirable to review the judgment rendered earlier for acceding to the prayer of petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of acquittal of two accused persons, the learned trial Court ought to have exercised discretion in his favour for release of vehicle under Section 452 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by learned counsel that even if further investigation is pending against one of the accused persons under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. there was no impediment in release of the vehicle on Supardaginama in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel, therefore, has urged that impugned order merits annulment and the vehicle in question be ordered to be released. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.2000/2015 (Madavdas v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 30.07.2015) and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.315/2013 (Rana Ram v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 05.07.2013).
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of petitioner.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I feel inclined to accept this misc. petition for temporary release of vehicle on Supardginama by relying on a judgment of this co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered at Jaipur Bench in Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 (1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 507. In that case, the vehicle was seized from accused for carrying contraband of small quantity just above the commercial quantity and it is in that background, the Court acceded to the prayer of the incumbent and recorded its finding that solely for the reason that the vehicle is likely to be confiscated after trial, conditional release of the vehicle on "Supurdagi" cannot be denied and interim custody of the vehicle can be granted to the incumbent on certain conditions. The Court laid down conditions for release of the vehicle on Supurdgi. The operative part of the order reads as under:-
"In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to accept the petition. Accordingly, the order dated 20.01.2010 is set aside and the miscellaneous petition is accepted. The motor vehicle is ordered to be released on "Supurdagi" on following conditions:-
(a) the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 1,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the car in
AI
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
