The court can rely on previous judgments to allow the release of seized property.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition praying that the impugned order dated 19.04.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, Bikaner arising out of FIR No.27/2022 registered at Police Station Gajner, Bikaner be set aside and spent earth be released in favour of the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the spent earth and the same is case property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the article should not be permitted to remain in the police station and shall not remain useful. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai (Supra) has held as under:-

"15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrate who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time. 16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."

3. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to refute the above position. Learned Public Prosecutor has shown the report, where the investigating officer has opined that if the same is released, there is no objection. The report is taken is taken on record.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

5. Thus, relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and order passed by this Court in Pannaram Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.439/2020) decided on 29.06.2020 and Amra Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No.1657/2020) decided on 02.08.2021, the present revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the spent earth on supardaginama in favour of petitioner on usual conditions, which the trial court deems fit, provided he furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/- before the trial court.