HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5701/2025

Ompraksh Payla S/o Pappuram, R/o Bawdi Village Kolaheda

Tehsil Narayanpur District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Pareek

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

01/12/2025

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Thanagaji, Alwar by which the application submitted by the petitioner seeking

release of the vehicle on Supurdagi has been rejected.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR No. 125/2025 was registered with the Police Station Naraianpur, District Kotputli Behror for the offence under Sections 8/21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 against the accused Suresh Payla, Mansingh and Somdath. Counsel submits that certain contraband was seized by the police at the instance of accused persons and the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. Scorpio bearing No. RJ07-UA-7686 was also seized by the police. Counsel submits that after investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted, hence the vehicle of the petitioner is not required for further investigation and the

petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle, hence he submitted an application to release the vehicle on Supurdagi but the said application has been rejected by the Court below by giving reference of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act of 1985 (for short, ‘the Act of 1985’). Counsel submits that Section 52(A) of the Act of 1985 related to disposal of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and not the vehicle. Counsel submits that recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. The State of Assam, while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 87/2025 on 07.01.2025 prescribed four scenarios/steps and the instant case of the petitioner falls in the fourth scenario, therefore, he is entitled to get the Supurdagi of the seized vehicle, hence interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the vehicle in question was used for carrying the drugs and psychotropic substances and the same was seized by the Police during the course of investigation, hence the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, therefore under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is the original owner of the vehicle in question which has been seized by the Investigating Officer in the FIR No. 125/2025 registered with the Police Station Naraianpur, Kotputli Behror under Sections 8/21 and 22 of the Act of 1985. This Court observed that the petitioner is not involved in the aforesaid incident, he has not been charge- sheeted and he is simply a registered owner of the vehicle but the Trial Court has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner by giving reference of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, stating that he has no jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle on supurdagi.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the provisions contained under Section 52-A of the Act of 1985 relates to disposal of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances not the registered vehicle, hence interpretation of Section 52-A of the Act of 1985 on the part of the learned Trial Judge is unwarranted.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra) has formulated certain factors i.e. four scenarios. First and second scenarios decline Supurdagi but next two scenarios deal with the release of the seized vehicle on Supurdagi .

8. For ready reference