[2026:RJ-JD:3257]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6854/2025 Sandeep Singh S/o Jagdish Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Ward No 39, Suratgarh, Police Station Suratgarh City, District Sriganganagar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

19/01/2026

1. By way of filing the instant miscellaneous petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 06.06.2025 passed by learned Addl. Session Judge, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, in Criminal Misc. Case No.41/2025 arising out of FIR No.136/2025 registered at Police Station Suratgarh Sadar, District Sriganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 and 25 of NDPS Act whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle in question (Car Maruti Swift Dzire) bearing registration No. RJ-41-CA-7172 on supurdagi has been declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question which has been seized by the Police in connection with the aforesaid FIR. Counsel submits that the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle in question, is the person best entitled to get back the possession of the seized property. It is also submitted that there is no other person claiming supurdagi of the same. He contends that the learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the seized vehicle is liable to be confiscated in view of Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act. However, that cannot be a sole ground to deny custody to the petitioner. He submits that the vehicle in question is presently stationed unused at the police station and soon it would become junk. It is further submitted that the interim custody of the vehicle to the registered owner cannot be confiscated only on the ground that the same is liable to be confiscated. It also appears from the impugned order, that confiscation proceedings have not been initiated till date. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the criminal miscellaneous petition.

4. The purport of the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously. The reason being that owner of the article should not suffer because of it remaining unused and the police should not be required to keep the article in safe custody. Apart from this, these seized vehicles which in a wider sense, are national property, would not be allowed to become junk day by day. It has been further laid down in the aforecited case law that while giving custody of the article, the article should be released on proper security.

5. Furthermore, in the aforecited precedent law, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the court should pass appropriate orders immediately and the articles should not be kept for a long time at the police station, and the procedure for disposal of the seized valuable articles, currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and narcotic drugs has been laid down therein.

6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforecited case law, the present misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.06.2025 passed by learned Addl. Session Judge Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, in Criminal Misc. Case No.41/2025 is quashed and set aside and the learned court below is directed to release the vehicle in question (Car Maruti Swift Dzire) bearing registration No. RJ-41-CA-7172 to the petitioner provided he furnishes a Supurdaginama of Rs.1,00,000/- and surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to the court below tha