[2025:RJ-JP:31694] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3137/2025 Mahipal Choudhary S/o Ghewarram, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of- Saran Ka Bans Thabukda, Police Station- Banad, District Jodhpur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 13/08/2025 1. This petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed challenging the order dated 12.03.2025, passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jhalawar, whereby petitioner’s application filed under Section 497 of BNSS to release the vehicle- Hyundai Venue Car bearing No. MP-15-CC-777 involved in FIR No.801/2024 at Police Station Kotwali Jhalawar, for offences u/s. 8/18, 29 of the NDPS Act, has been dismissed and the vehicle in question on Supurdgi, has not been released. 2. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question, which was seized in the present criminal case, arising out of FIR No.801/2024 at Police Station Kotwali Jhalawar. He submits that the charge sheet has already been filed and the conclusion of the criminal trial will take its own time. There is no rival claimant to take vehicle in question [2025:RJ-JP:31694] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3137/2025] on Supurdgi and petitioner is ready to abide by terms and conditions imposed by this Court to release the vehicle. If the vehicle will remain in custody of the Police, its condition would damage, the vehicle is parked at Police Station in an open place, so 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. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of petitioner to release the vehicle on Supurdgi. 5. Having heard counsel for parties, this Court finds that during the investigation in the FIR No.801/2024, the vehicle in question was seized and after completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The criminal case is under trial and unless the trial will not be concluded, there is no likelihood of passing any order of confiscation of the vehicle in question. It is noticeable that the Public Prosecutor has not brought in the notice of this Court about any order of confiscation in respect of vehicle in question. Petitioner has stated himself to be the registered owner and no rival claimant to take the custody of vehicle has come forward before this Court. Therefore, this Court prima facie [2025:RJ-JP:31694] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3137/2025] deems it just and proper as also expedient to release the vehicle in question in the interim custody of petitioner, however on certain conditions. 6. This Court finds support for its view by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) and the Coordinate Bench, in case of Prakash Chand (Supra), wherein it has been held that the conditional release of the seized vehicle during course of criminal trial, should not be ordinarily denied. 7. As a result, the present criminal petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.03.2025 is quashed and set aside. The vehicle in question is ordered to be released on “Supurdgi” to petitioner till completion of the criminal trial, but on fulfillment of following conditions:- “(a) the petitioner shall furnish a supurdginama for the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the vehicle- Hyundai Venue Car bearing No. MP-15-CC-777 in the Court as and when required to do so. (b) the petitioner shall get the vehicle in question photographed showing the registration number as well as the chasis 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 bond of surety shall carry photographs of the petitioner and his surety and the bond of surety shall further carry the photograph of perhaps identifying them before the Court which is with full [2025:RJ-JP:31694] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3137/2025] residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them. (d) the petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question and not to lease it to anyone and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable. (e) the petitioner will not allow the vehicle in question to be used for any antisocial activities including for the purpose of carrying narcotics which may constitute offence under the NDPS Act.” (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /94