[2025:RJ-JP:3041] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 387/2025 Bhikaram Son Of Shri Oparam, Resident Of Bisalpur District Jodhpur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 22/01/2025 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed against the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Cases), and Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Beawar District Ajmer whereby, the application filed by the accused- petitioner for releasing the vehicle No. RJ-54-CA-1716, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle, which has been seized by the police on 26.10.2024 in FIR No.468/2024 registered at Police Station Saket Nagar for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. He further submits that the investigation has been completed and the vechicle is no more required for [2025:RJ-JP:3041] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-387/2025] investigation. The vehicle is standing idle in the police station and if the vehicle is allowed to remain standing in the police station, then it will be deteriorated, therefore, the vehicle should be released. 3. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002)10 SCC 290 and Co-ordinate Bench Judgments dated 14.08.2012 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2682/2012, Phool Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and in cases of Bal Mikand vs. State, reported in 1994 Cri Lr (Raj) 4, Prakash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.416/2010 decided on 12.03.2010 & Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.61/2018 decided on 16.04.2018, he submitted that vehicle be given to the petitioner on furnishing ‘Supurdginama’. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application on the ground that the vehicle in question was involved in the commission of offence under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity “the Act of 1985”), therefore, the same is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the Act of 1985 and hence, the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:3041] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-387/2025] 6. The petitioner is claiming the vehicle as its registered owner and there is no other person except the petitioner claiming the vehicle. Now, it is no more res integra that vehicle seized under the provisions of the Act of 1985, can be released in favour of its registered owner; though may be an accused, if no order of confiscation has been passed. 7. In these circumstances, this criminal miscellaneous petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Cases), Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Beawar District Ajmer is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the vehicle, Maruti Suzuki Swift No. RJ- 54-CA-1716 be released in favour of the petitioner on ‘supurdginama’ on producing original registration certificate and on satisfying conditions:- "(1) The petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the vehicle in question in the Court as and when required to do so. (2) 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. (3) The personal bonds of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and her sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photographs of persons identifying them before the Court with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them. (4) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in [2025:RJ-JP:3041] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-387/2025] question and not to lease it to any one and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable." 8. Stay application and all other pending applications, also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J TANISHA /42