[2025:RJ-JP:36845] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 820/2025 Hemraj Kumawat S/o Chitarmal Kumawat, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Plot No. 31 Karni Isthal, 200 Feet Byepass, Heerapura Ajmer Road Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Seema Moyal for Mr. Yunus Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 11/ 09/2025 1. The instant revision petition has been preferred under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of B.N.S.S. against the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Shambhar Lake, District Jaipur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.82/2025 in connection with F.I.R. No.58/2025, registered at Police Station Jobner, Distt. Jaipur Rural for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 8/20 & 8/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, whereby the application under Section 503 of B.N.S.S. preferred by the petitioner for 'supurdagi' of vehicle-in-question i.e. Breeza Car bearing Registration No.RJ45-CH-6547, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicles-in-question and, therefore, he is entitled for custody of the vehicles on ‘supurdagi’. Relying [2025:RJ-JP:36845] (2 of 3) [CRLR-820/2025] upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, learned counsel further contends that the vehicles should not be permitted to remain parked in the Police Station as the same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful. Learned counsel prays that the present revision petition may be allowed, the impugned order be quashed & set aside and the application filed by petitioner for releasing the vehicle-in-question on ‘supurdagi’ be also allowed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made herein-above. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the entire material made available on record. 5. Looking to the overall facts & circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the interim custody of the vehicle alleged to be used in committing the offence of N.D.P.S. Act, cannot be denied on the ground of severity of offence(s). 6. Keeping in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai(supra), there is no reason to deny interim custody of vehicles to the owner or the person entitled to get possession of the vehicle. If the vehicles are allowed to be kept in the Police Station for an indefinite period, then value of vehicles shall be diminished substantially and they may not remain in usable condition. 7. Consequently, the present criminal revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dt.24.04.2025 passed by the Court [2025:RJ-JP:36845] (3 of 3) [CRLR-820/2025] of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Shambhar Lake, District Jaipur, is quashed & set aside and the vehicle-in-question i.e. Breeza Car bearing Registration No.RJ45-CH-6547, are ordered to be released on ‘supurdagi’ in favour of the petitioner, provided he shall furnish Supurdaginama and surety bond to the satisfaction of the learned Court below. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J SAURABH /16