HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5701/2025 Ompraksh Payla S/o Pappuram, R/o Bawdi Village Kolaheda Tehsil Narayanpur District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/12/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Thanagaji, Alwar by which the application submitted by the petitioner seeking release of the vehicle on Supurdagi has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR No. 125/2025 was registered with the Police Station Naraianpur, District Kotputli Behror for the offence under Sections 8/21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 against the accused Suresh Payla, Mansingh and Somdath. Counsel submits that certain contraband was seized by the police at the instance of accused persons and the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. Scorpio bearing No. RJ07-UA-7686 was also seized by the police. Counsel submits that after investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted, hence the vehicle of the petitioner is not required for further investigation and the (2 of 5) [CRLMP-5701/2025] petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle, hence he submitted an application to release the vehicle on Supurdagi but the said application has been rejected by the Court below by giving reference of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act of 1985 (for short, ‘the Act of 1985’). Counsel submits that Section 52(A) of the Act of 1985 related to disposal of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and not the vehicle. Counsel submits that recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. The State of Assam, while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 87/2025 on 07.01.2025 prescribed four scenarios/steps and the instant case of the petitioner falls in the fourth scenario, therefore, he is entitled to get the Supurdagi of the seized vehicle, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the vehicle in question was used for carrying the drugs and psychotropic substances and the same was seized by the Police during the course of investigation, hence the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, therefore under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is the original owner of the vehicle in question which has been seized by the Investigating Officer in the FIR No. 125/2025 registered with the Police Station Naraianpur, Kotputli Behror under Sections 8/21 (3 of 5) [CRLMP-5701/2025] and 22 of the Act of 1985. This Court observed that the petitioner is not involved in the aforesaid incident, he has not been charge- sheeted and he is simply a registered owner of the vehicle but the Trial Court has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner by giving reference of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, stating that he has no jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle on supurdagi. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the provisions contained under Section 52-A of the Act of 1985 relates to disposal of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances not the registered vehicle, hence interpretation of Section 52-A of the Act of 1985 on the part of the learned Trial Judge is unwarranted. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra) has formulated certain factors i.e. four scenarios. First and second scenarios decline Supurdagi but next two scenarios deal with the release of the seized vehicle on Supurdagi . 8. For ready reference relevant para of the aforesaid judgment 29 and 30 are reproduced as under:- “29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any (4 of 5) [CRLMP-5701/2025] allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner’s knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused. 30. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated.” 9. Looking to the fact that the petitioner is not the accused and he has not been chargesheet and also considering the fact that he is simply a registered owner of the vehicle in question, hence the case of the petitioner falls under the 4th scenario. 13. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Court below is liable to be quashed and set aside and the application submitted by the petitioner stands allowed. The trial Court is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner on the following conditions:- “a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification. b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property. (5 of 5) [CRLMP-5701/2025] c) That the petitioner shall furnish the photographs of the vehicle in question showing its number and colour etc. d) At the time of release, the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the effect that the vehicle in question shall not be used for any illegal purpose and if so found, the petitioner shall be personally liable. e) That the petitioner shall execute a Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and shall also furnish two surety bonds subject to the satisfaction of the trial court.” (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/7