HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1288/2025 Smt Anita Sansi W/o Shree Vikas Sansi, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kanjro Ki Dhani Village Gopalpura, District Kotputli Behror At Present Serve Number- 2/435, Teela Number-02, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Mohd. Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Addl.GA-cum-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/10/2025 1. This Court directed the Public Prosecutor to get the status report of investigation vide order dated 13.08.2025. 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, Public Prosecutor has furnished a report of SHO, Police Station Transport Nagar, which indicates that inventory of the vehicle has already been prepared and the investigation with regard to involvement of the petitioner has already been completed. 3. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, by which the application submitted by the petitioner seeking supurdagi of Scooty vehicle bearing No.RJ60-SL-3932 has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, which has been seized by the Investigating Officer in (2 of 4) [CRLR-1288/2025] connection with FIR No.92/2025 registered with Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur for the offence under Section 8/21 and 24 of the NDPS Act. Counsel submits that being registered owner of the vehicle, the petitioner is entitled to get the possession of the same. He further submits that no other person is claiming supurdagi of the aforesaid vehicle and the vehicle is lying at the Police Station and if the same is not released on supurdagi in favour of the petitioner, it would become junk. 5. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638. Counsel has further placed reliance upon the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajsattavan vs. State of Rajasthan while deciding S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.830/2024 and Radhagovind Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Another while deciding S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1995/2024. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made herein above, the order impugned be quashed and a direction be issued to the learned Trial Judge to release the scooty in question on supurdagi in favour of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 8. The purport of the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. (3 of 4) [CRLR-1288/2025] should be exercised expeditiously. The reason being that owner of the article should not suffer because of it remaining unused and the police should not be required to keep the article in safe custody. Apart from this, these seized vehicles which in a wider sense, are national property, would not be allowed to become junk day by day. It has been further laid down in the aforecited case law that while giving custody of the article, the article should be released on proper security. 9. Furthermore, in the aforecited precedent law, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the court should pass appropriate orders immediately and the articles should not be kept for a long time at the police station, and the procedure for disposal of the seized valuable articles, currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and narcotic drugs has been laid down therein. 10. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the parties and the proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the above noted case, the instant revision petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 10.06.2025 stands quashed and set-aside. The Trial Court is directed to release the vehicle in question i.e. scooty bearing No.RJ60-SL-3932 to the petitioner. 11. The petitioner is directed to furnish supurdagi of Rs.50,000/- and surety of like amount to the satisfaction to the Trial Court with the stipulation that the petitioner would submit an undertaking before the Trial Court that he would not sell, transfer or alienate the vehicle in question without (4 of 4) [CRLR-1288/2025] seeking permission of the Trial Court and he shall not use the vehicle for any illegal and unlawful purpose in future. 12. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/16