[2025:RJ-JD:30662]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 871/2025 Vinod S/o Mohan, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Sadi, Police Station Sadawas, District Chittorgarh.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

14/07/2025 Petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition under Section 441/442 of BNSS to assail the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhilwara whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application under Section 497 of BNSS moved by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle Maruti Suzuki Alto K10 Car bearing registration No.RJ-

09-CD-7581.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and challan of the case has already been presented. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has placed reliance on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered at Jaipur Bench in Prakash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in

2010(1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 507. In the aforesaid judgment, the vehicle and other articles were seized from the accused for carrying contraband of small quantity just above the commercial quantity. It is in that background, the Court has acceded to the prayer of the incumbent and recorded its finding that solely for the reason that the vehicle and other articles are likely to be confiscated after trial, conditional release of the vehicle and other articles on Supurdginama and surety cannot be denied and interim custody of the vehicle and other articles can be granted to the incumbent on certain conditions.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283 and co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in case of Prakash Chand (supra) has held that conditional release of the vehicle cannot be denied.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs.

State of Assam reported in 2025 3 SCC 241 has observed that :-

27. Though the risk of misuse by the accused or third party of the same plane or bus or ship cannot be ruled out, yet the Courts do not take coercive action on the basis of fear or suspicion or hypothetical situation.

28. Undoubtedly, the Vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence that may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution’s case, yet the said requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the Vehicle in interim on superdari like videography and still photographs to be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the said inventory as well as restriction on sale/transfer of the Vehicle.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed and the order dated 01.07.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside and the vehicle Maruti Suzuki Alto K10 Car bearing registration No.RJ-09- CD-7581, in question is ordered to be released on ‘supardgi’ till the completion of the trial upon following conditions:- (a) the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.3 lacs with two sureties of Rs.1 lac each to the satisfaction of the trial Court and shall give undertaking to produce the vehicle in the Court as and when required to do so.

(b) the petitioner shall get the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case.

(c) the personal bond of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and his sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photograph of persons identifying them before the Court which is with full residential particulars of the sure