Seized assets should be released when they are no longer required for investigation, ensuring they do not remain unnecessarily confiscated.

Headnote:
[RELEASE] - [PROCEEDS OF CRIME] - [The court addressed the release of an amount alleged to be proceeds of contraband, emphasizing that such funds should not remain confiscated if no longer needed for investigation. Citing precedents, the court underscored the importance of timely disposal of seized assets, leading to the decision to allow the release of the funds under specified conditions.]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to set aside an order from the Special Judge, NDPS No.1, Chittorgarh, which denied the release of Rs.6,00,000/- claimed to be proceeds of contraband.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the amount was no longer required for investigation and referenced previous judgments to support the release of the funds.
Issues: Whether the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- should be released to the petitioner given that it was no longer needed for the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles established in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat and Lune Khan vs. State of Rajasthan, which advocate for the timely release of seized assets when they are no longer necessary for ongoing investigations.
Result: The petition was allowed, directing the trial court to release the amount on the condition that the petitioner provides a bank guarantee of Rs.6,00,000/-.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition praying that the order dated 29.06.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS No.1, Chittorgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.276/2021 (CIS No.48/2021) be set aside, whereby the said Court refused to release the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred this petition for releasing the amount in question, which is alleged to be the proceed of the contraband in question. He further submits that the amount in question is no longer required for the investigation, as has been wrongly kept under confiscation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Lune Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan,2018 4 CrLR 1783.

5. 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 as same shall not remain useful.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to refute the above position.

7. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and Lune Khan (supra), the present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on supardaginama on usual conditions, which the trial court deems fit, provided he furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs.6,00,000/- with the learned trial court. The disposal of the bank guarantee shall be in accordance with the final directions to be passed by the learned trial court after conclusion of the trial.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document