Conditional release of seized vehicles is permissible when no rival claims exist; it helps prevent damage and ensures availability for trial.

30/04/2024

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C . has been filed challenging the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur, whereby petitioner’s application filed under Section 451 Cr.PC to release the vehicle Innova Car bearing registration No. RJ-14-UF-8290 seized in FIR No.428/2021 registered at Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur Rural for offences under Sections 8 /20 and 8/21 of the NDPS Act, has been dismissed and the vehicle in question on Supurdgi has not been released so also the order dated 06.05.2023, dismissing the revision petition filed against the order dated 23.02.2023.

2. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is power of attorney holder of the registered owner of the vehicle in question, which was seized in the present criminal case, arising out of FIR No.428/2021 registered at Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur Rural from the custody of petitioner. He submits that petitioner is also one of accused in the present criminal case and charge sheet has already been filed, but the conclusion of the criminal trial will take its own time. He submits (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2545/2024]

that there is no other rival claimant other than petitioner, to take vehicle in question on Supurdgi and petitioner is ready to abide by terms and conditions imposed by this Court to release the vehicle. If the vehicle remains in custody of the Police, its condition would damage, if the vehicle is parked at Police Station under open sky, the same would catch rust in dust and rain; further, the custody of vehicle with the Police is no more required during course of trial, therefore, in such circumstances, the vehicle may be ordered to be released to petitioner on Supurdgi.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court delivered in case of Sunderbahi Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283] as also on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the Rajasthan High Court delivered in case of Prakash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan [ (2010) 1 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 507 ].

4. Reliance has also been placed on an order of Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 14.10.2022 in case of Ramkishan Karnani S/o Laxmichand Karnani Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4900/2022, whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court has released the vehicle which was registered for offence under Section 60 of NDPS Act, for interim custody on supurdgi with certain conditions which are follows as under:-

“10. The trial Court is, therefore, directed to release the car in question (Chassis No. MA3TEC72SMM115125 & Engine No. K10CN017193) on supurdagi in accordance with law obviously, on being satisfied that the petitioner is owner of the vehicle in question and subject however to a condition that he submits an FDR of Rs.6,00,000/- issued by some nationalised bank drawn in the name of the trial court.

11. The petitioner shall be required to furnish an undertaking before the trial court to the effect that as and when the vehicle is required during the trial, he shall produce the same before the trial Court, apart from other usual conditions of not creating third party rights, changing the colour etc.

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-2545/2024]

12. The final order of release of vehicle/FDR so furnished, shall be passed only in case the trial court holds that the vehicle in question is not liable to be confiscated. In case, the vehicle is ordered to be confiscated, then amount of FDR shall be forfeited.”

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of petitioner to release the vehicle on Supurdgi.

6. Having heard counsel for parties, this Court finds that during investigation in the FIR No.428/2021, the vehicle in question was seized from the custody of petiti