Order

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 19.11.2024, passed by the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Cases) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanimandi, District Jhalawar, by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 497 BNSS, 2023 ( Section 451 Cr.P.C.), seeking supurdagi of the vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki Swift ZXI BS VI bearing Chasis No.MBHCZCB3SPBB79688 and Engine No.K12NP1372761, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the original owner/registered owner of the aforesaid seized vehicle. Counsel submits that the said vehicle has been seized by the Police in connection with the F.I.R. No. 96/2023, registered against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 8, 18 & 29 of the NDPS Act at the Police Station Dug, District Jhalawar, wherein charge-sheet has also been submitted against the co-accused persons. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is not an accused in the aforesaid case and he has no concern whatsoever with the alleged incident. Counsel submits that during the course of trial, in case, the subject vehicle is not released on supurdagi and continues to remain seized with the Police, then it would certainly deteriorate and its value would also depreciate. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get the custody of the same.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer raised by counsel for the petitioner.

4. On the earlier occasion, when the matter was listed before this Court on 25.05.2026, this fact was brought into notice of the Court that though the vehicle in question was purchased by the petitioner, but the same has not been registered by the Transport Authority, hence, under these circumstances, the vehicle in question was not released on supurdagi in favour of the petitioner.

5. On directions issued by this Court, Mr.S.S. Naruka, AAG appearing on behalf of the Department of Transport, apprised this Court that the vehicle in question was purchased by the petitioner on 05.04.2023 and a temporary registration No.RJ20 TC 0261 was assigned to the vehicle in question with the condition that the petitioner would get the aforesaid vehicle registered at the Office of the District Transport Officer, Kota, within a period of 30 days. The said period of 30 days has expired, and the vehicle has not been registered by the petitioner. Counsel submits that a procedure has been provided under the Motor Vehicle Act to deal with such like situation, where delay has been caused by the purchaser/owner of the vehicle, therefore, appropriate directions be issued.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. Considering the argument put forward by rival sides and perusing the record, it reveals that the vehicle in question has been seized in connection with the impugned F.I.R. for the offences under Sections 8, 18 & 29 of the NDPS Act and thereafter, charge-sheet has also been submitted against the co-accused. The petitioner is not an accused in the instant matter and the role and involvement of the petitioner has not been found to be proved by the Investigating Officer. He is claiming the custody of the vehicle on the basis of the fact that he purchased the subject vehicle. However, his prayer for release of the aforesaid vehicle on supurdagi has been rejected by the Court below on the technical count that he is not a regis