Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:36851] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5533/2025 Fakru Son Of Shri Vanshi, R/o Piproli Tehsil And Police Station Ramgarh District Alwar Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The learned Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shamsul Aarefin For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order 10/09/2025
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by denying to release his vehicle Hyundai Creta bearing No. RJ-02-CJ-4111 seized in connection with FIR No. 277/2025 registered at Police Station Ramgarh (Alwar), District Alwar for offences under Sections 112(2), 318(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of BNS 2023 and Section 66-D of IT Act and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 vide
order dated 18.07.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh (Alwar) so also against order dated 19.08.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Alwar dismissed the criminal case. 2. It has inter alia been stated that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle in question and not accused in the impugned FIR. However, the Judicial Magistrate denied to release the vehicle on supardginama on erroneous pretext and with reasonings that criminal case is under trial and release of vehicle may multiply the occurrence of criminal offence. [2025:RJ-JP:36851] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5533/2025]
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of petitioner to release the vehicle on Supurdgi. 4. Having heard counsel for parties, this Court finds that during the investigation in the FIR No. 277/2025, 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 to 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 deems it just and proper as also expedient to release the vehicle in question in the interim custody of petitioner, however on certain conditions. 5. This Court finds support for its view by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283] and the Coordinate Bench, in case of Prakash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2010) 1 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 507], wherein it has been held that the conditional release of the seized vehicle during course of criminal trial, should not be ordinarily denied. 6. As a result, the present criminal petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 18.07.2025 and 19.08.2025 are quashed and set aside.
The vehicle in question is ordered to be released on
[2025:RJ-JP:36851] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5533/2025]
“Supurdgi” to petitioner till completion of the criminal trial, but on fulfillment of following conditions:-
“(a) the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee for the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and jamanat to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the vehicle bearing No. RJ-02-CJ-4111 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 chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case. (c) 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. (d) 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 pcg/59