The court ruled that the conditional release of a seized vehicle should not be denied without valid reasons, emphasizing the need to prevent damage during prolonged custody.

ORDER :

Sudesh Bansal, J. - This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed challenging the order dated 17.02.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu whereby petitioner's application filed under Section 451 Cr.PC to release the vehicle Motorcycle bearing No. RJ-18-KS-5351 seized in FIR No.29/2024 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu for offences under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, has been dismissed and the vehicle in question on Supurdgi has not been released.

2. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question, which was seized in the present criminal case, arising out of FIR No.29/2024 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu. Counsel submits that the learned trial Court fell in illegality in declining to release the conveyance in the light of Section 52(A) NDPS Act which in fact deals with the recovered contraband. Section 60 deals with the recovery of conveyance and procedure of confiscation and disposed of the conveyance is provide in Section 63. There is no other rival claimant to take custody vehicle in question on Supurdgi and petitioner is ready to abide by terms and conditions imposed by this Court to release the vehicle. If the vehicle remains to be in custody of the Police, its condition would damage, as the vehicle is parked at Police Station in an open place and the same would catch rust in dust and rain; therefore, in such circumstances, the vehicle may be ordered to be released to petitioner on Supurdgi.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court delivered in case of Sunderbahi Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the Rajasthan High Court delivered in case of Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan [(2010) 1 Cri.LR (Raj) 507] so also the order of Coordinate Bench of this Court delivered in case of Ramkishan Karnani v. State of Rajasthan; SB Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No.4900/2022 decided on 14.10.2022.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of petitioner to release the vehicle on Supurdgi.

5. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ramkishan Karnani (Supra), while considering Sections 60(3) and 63(1) of NDPS Act as also Section 452(1) of Cr.PC, observed as under:-

"(i) Any vehicle used to carry any narcotic drug/psychotropic substance/controlled substances/any article liable to be confiscation under Section 60(1) and 60(2), shall be liable to confiscation;

(ii) Upon conclusion of the trial of the accused, the Court must decide if such vehicle is liable to confiscation;

(ii) If such vehicle is liable to confiscation the Court shall pass an order for confiscation;

(iv) The Court may not pass an order for confiscation if the owner of the vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use."

6. Having heard counsel for parties, this Court finds that the Public Prosecutor has not brought to notice of this Court about any order of confiscation in respect of vehicle in question. Petitioner has stated himself to be the registered owner and no rival claimant to take custody of vehicle came forward neither before the trial Court nor before this Court. Vehicle would certainly may damage in case it is allowed to continue to remain parked and unused. The Additional Session Judge committed illegality in applying Section 52(A), while dealing with the application to release the conveyance and not the contraband. There is statutory bar to release the seized vehicle on supurdgi. This Court, prima facie, deems it just and proper as also expedient to release the vehicle in question in the interim custody of petitioner, however on certain conditions.

7. This Court finds support for its view by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) and the C