HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1974/2019 Mansingh S/o Udai Singh, R/o Talod (Power Of Attorney Holder), Registered Owner Shyam Singh S/o Mansingh, R/o Talod, Police Station Aalot, District Ratlam. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rakesh Saini for Sanjay Mehrish For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhawanimandi, District Jhalawar, by which the application submitted on behalf of the registered owner, i.e., Shyam Singh by the power of attorney to obtain supurdagi of the subject vehicle in question has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Shyam Singh is the registered owner of the vehicle and his vehicle has been seized by the Police in the F.I.R. No.69/2017 registered at the Police Station Mishroli, District Jhalawar under Section 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Counsel submits that Shyam Singh being the registered owner of the vehicle in question would be entitled to get the same on supurdagi till conclusion of the trial. (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1974/2019] 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and submits that Shyam Singh is also an accused and the charge- sheet has already been submitted against him under Sections 8/25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, hence, under these circumstances, the registered owner of the vehicle, i.e., Shyam Singh is not entitled to get supurdagi of the subject vehicle in pursuance of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that an F.I.R. No.69/2017 has been registered at the Police Station Mishroli, District Jhalawar under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act. This fact is also not in dispute that huge quantity of contraband material has been recovered from the subject vehicle and the petitioner is the registered owner of the same and he has also been charge- sheeted under Section 8/25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey (supra) has dealt with four scenarios, wherein it was held that if scenario one and two are applicable and where the registered owner of the vehicle has also been impleaded as an accused, then he will not be entitled to get the custody of the vehicle in question in spite of being the registered owner of the same. 7. Para Nos.33 to 35 are reproduced hereinbelow, for ready reference: (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1974/2019] “33. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized/recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused. 34. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1974/2019] owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated. 35. This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be open to the trial courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant” 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioner has been charge- sheeted under Section 8/25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, he is not entitlted to get the custody of the said vehicle in pursuance of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey (supra), hence, this Court finds no error in the order impugned passed by the Court below. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. All pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /15