Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
ASHISH – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Key Points: - The High Court allowed release of two mobile phones on ‘supardgi’ pending trial under Section 451 Cr.P.C. after finding ownership proved by purchase bills (!) (!) - The trial court had dismissed the release application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. prior to the High Court judgment (!) - The released phones are: Vivo V25 PRO (12/256 GB) Blue and I-Phone 15 Plus, 128 GB Blue (!) - Conditions for release include: personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each; production of phones in court when required; bonds carrying photographs and identifying details; prohibition on selling or altering phones to remain unidentifiable (!) (!) (!) (!) - The case concerns ownership proof via purchase bills supporting release of seized property under NDPS Act, with the court recognizing ownership documents as sufficient (!)
Judgment :
1. Petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C . (Section 438/442 BNSS) to assail the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases No.1, District Chittorgarh whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C ., moved by the petitioner for releasing/handing over the two mobile phones i.e. (1) Vivo V25 PRO (12/256 GB) Blue & (2) I-Phone 15 Plus, 128 GB Blue on ‘supurdgi’.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally the mobile phones were seized along with the vehicle under Section 102 Cr.P.C . by the police for commission of offence punishable under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act in connection with FIR No.02/2024 and the phones are under the custody of CBN, District Chittorgarh. Counsel further submits that charge-sheet in this case has already been presented and the mobile phones in question are unnecessarily lying in the police custody and the same may get damaged. Hence, it is prayed that the mobile phones in question may be released on ‘Supardginama’.
3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and p
The court held that ownership proof, such as purchase bills, can justify the release of seized property under Section 451 Cr.P.C., even after initial dismissal by the trial court.
Lawful owners of seized property may reclaim items pending trial under certain conditions to prevent devaluation and ensure compliance with legal processes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
