[2026:RJ-JD:12538]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 357/2026 Nirma Devi W/o Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Jajiwal Bishnoiyan, Jajiwal Kala Mandore, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan) (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Bhanwarlal, Purchaser Of Vehicle Car Brezza No. Dl 9 Cal 6543)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Khilery For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

16/03/2026

1. By way of filing of the instant criminal revision petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 05/2025 pertaining to FIR No. 414/2024 registered at Police Station Bhadra, District Hanumangarh whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle in question (Car Brezza)

bearing registration No.DL 9 CAL 6543, has been declined.

2. The present application has been preferred seeking release of the seized vehicle. It has been submitted that the vehicle in question was originally registered in the name of Satinder Kaur. It emerges from the record that Satinder had alienated the vehicle in question in favour of one Ashok Kumar after executing the requisite documents, including the prescribed transfer forms, sale note and No Objection Certificate, all of which were duly submitted before the Transport Department for effectuating transfer of ownership. However, despite the aforesaid transaction and completion of formalities at the departmental level, it is alleged that Ashok Kumar, the petitioner, subsequently proceeded to transfer/sell the said vehicle further to the husband of the petitioner, thereby giving rise to the present controversy concerning the chain of title and legality of subsequent transfer.

3. Learned counsel submits that the husband of the petitioner, Bhanwarlal (since deceased) had purchased the said vehicle from one Ashok Kumar during his lifetime, to whom the registered owner had transferred the same. Unfortunately, the petitioner’s husband has since passed away.

4. It is further submitted that upon the demise of the petitioner’s husband, the property left behind by the deceased, including the vehicle in question, has devolved upon the petitioner by way of succession. It has also been stated that there is no other claimant asserting any right over the said vehicle.

5. Additionally, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the previous owner Ashok Kumar had sold the vehicle to Bhanwarlal, and a copy of the agreement evidencing the said transaction has also been placed on record. Furthermore, Ashok Kumar has executed an affidavit stating that if the vehicle is released in favour of the present petitioner, he has no objection to the same.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made at the Bar and examined the material placed on record. The petitioner appears to have a legitimate claim over the vehicle by virtue of succession to the estate of her deceased husband and no rival claim has been brought to the notice of this Court. It is well settled that seized vehicles should not be allowed to remain in police custody for an indefinite period as the same results in deterioration of the vehicle.

7. Considering the submissions and following the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2005/2022 [SLP (Crl.) No.7280/2022) titled as Sainaba Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr., wherein, the vehicle involved in a crime under NDPS Act was directed to be released on terms and conditions to be determined by the Special Court, the revision petition is allowed and this Court deems it just and appropriate to release the vehicle in question in favour of the pe