JUDGMENT :

Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J.

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 21.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for releasing the car under her ownership, has been dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that the car in question was seized in FIR No. 08/2020 in which Police after investigation has filed charge sheet against as many as ten accused persons under various provisions of IPC, Arms Act and under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity 'the Act of 1985'). Admittedly, the petitioner is not an accused in the charge sheet nor any contraband was recovered from the car.

3. Learned counsel submitted that she is registered owner of the car in question with no rival claimants for its release. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 290 and Coordinate Bench Judgments dated 14.08.2012 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2682/2012, Phool Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and in cases of Bal Mikand vs. State, 1994 Cri.L.J. (Raj) 4, Prakash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 416/2010 decided on 12.03.2010 & Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 61/2018 decided on 16.04.2018, he submitted that vehicle be given on 'supurdginama' to the petitioner.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal misc. petition.

5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is undisputed that the petitioner is registered owner of the car in question which has not been claimed by any other person. Although, no contraband was recovered from the car; still, it is well settled law that a vehicle seized under the provisions of the Act of 1985 can be released in favour of the registered owner provided no order of confiscation has been passed.

7. In these circumstances, this criminal miscellaneous petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 21.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the Hyundai i20, RJ-17-CB-0651 be released in favour of the petitioner on 'supurdginama' on her producing original registration certificate and on satisfying following conditions:-

(1) She furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 3,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with undertaking to produce the vehicle in question in the Court as and when required to do so.

(2) She shall get the vehicle in question photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case.

(3) The personal bond of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and her sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photographs of persons identifying them before the Court with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them.

(4) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question and not to lease it to anyone and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable.