The court can allow the release of seized vehicles on supardaginama upon furnishing a bank guarantee, relying on relevant legal precedents.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition praying that the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bikaner (Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bikaner) in Criminal Misc. Case No.172/2022, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release the car bearing registration No.PB-47F-2777 (Maruti Vitara Brezza) to the petitioner. The said vehicle was seized in connection with FIR No.216/2022 registered at P.S. Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, District Bikaner for the offence under Sections 8/18, 25, 29 of NDPS Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle in-question 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 vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust 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 PP is not in a position to refute the above position.

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 04.09.2020, the present revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release car bearing registration No.PB-47F-2777 (Maruti Vitara Brezza) on supardaginama in favour of petitioner on usual conditions, which the trial court deems fit, provided she furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs.4,50,000/- before the trial court.

6. Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the said vehicle