[2025:RJ-JP:6344] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1915/2024 Dhirendra Fight Carrier, P.r. Dhirendra Singh S/o Shobhasingh, R/o Bh Bunk 2/1/2, Madnayakannahalli, Tumkurmn Rd Dpura H Banglore Ka- 562113 Through Special Power Of Attorney Irfan S/o Fajru R/o Gram Khod Basai, Tehsil And District Nuh Mewat Haryana 122103 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Ratiram Gurjar S/o Sh. Harikishan Gurjar, At Present Posted A.S.I., Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 13/02/2025 The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred on behalf of petitioner against the impugned order dt.25.06.2024 passed by Court of learned District Collector, Dausa, whereby the application filed by the petitioner to release the vehicle bearing registration No.KA- 52A-8812, seized in F.I.R. No.174/2023 registered at Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 3, 5 & 8 of the Rajasthan Bovine Act, has been rejected & the vehicle, in question has not been released on ‘supurdagi’. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a power of attorney holder by the registered owner of the [2025:RJ-JP:6344] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1915/2024] vehicle-in-question and, therefore, he is entitled for custody of the vehicle on ‘supurdagi’. Relying 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 vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the Police Station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful. Learned counsel prays that the present writ 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. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made herein-above. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the entire material made available on record. After going through the entire record, this Court is of the view that the interim custody of the vehicle, alleged to be used in committing the offence(s) under Sections of Rajasthan Bovine Act, cannot be denied on the ground of severity of offence(s). It is also a settled legal proposition of law that interim custody of vehicle cannot be denied on the ground that it is liable to be confiscated, in case the offence is proved against the accused. Furthermore, 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 vehicle to owner or person entitled to get possession of the vehicle. If the vehicle is allowed to be kept in the Police Station for an indefinite period, then value [2025:RJ-JP:6344] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1915/2024] of vehicle shall be diminished substantially and it may not remain in usable condition. Consequently, the present criminal writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dt. 25.06.2024 passed by ld. District Collector, Dausa, is quashed & set aside and the vehicle-in- question bearing registration No.KA-52A-8812, is ordered to be released on ‘supurdagi’ in favour of the petitioner till completion of the trial upon furnishing Supurdaginama of Rs.2,00,000/- and surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J SAHIL SONI /56