[2026:RJ-JD:3328]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 461/2026 Sujanaram Vishnoi S/o Kishana Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Sheraniyon Ki Dhani, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore Through Power Of Attorney Holder Devi Lal S/o Veera Ram Vishnoi, Resident Of Karwada, Tehsil Raniwara, District Jalore Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

20/01/2026

1. By way of filing the instant Cr. Misc. Petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 20.12.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, No.1, Chittorgarh in Cr. Misc. Application No.1204/2025 (CIS No.387/2025) arising out of FIR No.267/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 8/18, 8/25 & 8/29 of NDPS Act whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle in question (Maruti Suzuki Alto 800) bearing registration No. GJ-15-CH-5681 on supurdagi has been declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not charge-sheet by the Police in the aforesaid FIR and he 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 Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.12.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases No.1, Chittorgarh in Cr. Misc. Application No.1204/2025 (CIS No.387/2025) is quashed and set aside and the learned court below is directed to release the vehicle in question (Maruti Suzuki Alto 800) bearing registration