[2025:RJ-JP:2946] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4178/2024 Yadram Saini S/o Chouthmal Saini, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Plot No. 57, Central Colony Road No. 8 VKI, Police Thana Murlipura, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Buddhi Prakash Meena, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 21/01/2025 1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Case, Jaipur Metropolitan No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in the matter of Yadram Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan by which learned trial Court has refused to release the vehicle No. DL.4.CAT.0770 seized in the FIR No. 493/2023 registered at Police Station Pratapnagar, District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 21 & 25 of NDPS Act, 1985. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle seized in this matter. Learned counsel further submits that the vehicle was seized on 27.05.2023, since then, the vehicle is lying in the police station [2025:RJ-JP:2946] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4178/2024] and is getting deteriorated. Learned counsel further submits that there is no one except the petitioner, claiming the vehicle and the petitioner is the only person entitled to get possession of the seized vehicle, therefore, the vehicle should be released in his favour. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in [AIR 2003 SC 638]. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle No. DL.4.CAT.0770, which has been seized by the police on 27.05.2023. The petitioner has not been made accused in the matter which is clear from the factual report dated 10.07.2024 submitted by learned Public Prosecutor today. The factual report is taken on record. 6. Learned trial Court has refused to allow the application for release of vehicle on the ground that the vehicle seized is liable to be confiscated. However, in the aforecited precedent law, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) has held that the Court should pass appropriate orders immediately and the articles should not be kept for the long time at the police station. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforecited case law, this Court deems it a fit case to allow the present petition and [2025:RJ-JP:2946] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4178/2024] to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Case, Jaipur Metropolitan No.1. 8. In these circumstances, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.02.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Case, Jaipur Metropolitan No.1 is quashed and set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to release the vehicle in question bearing registeration No. DL.4.CAT.0770 to the petitioner provided that the petitioner furnishes a ‘Supurdginama’ of Rs.10,00,000/- and one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court along with four cabinet size photographs of the vehicle from all the four sides. The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to the court below that he shall not sell, transfer or alienate the vehicle in question without permission of the court and that he shall not use the vehicle for any illegal and unlawful purpose in future. He shall also produce the vehicle before learned trial court as and when asked upon to do so. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in view of the above terms. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J Mohita /237