[2026:RJ-JP:29191] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6578/2024 CNR: RJHC020841152024 | URN: CRLMP / 13345U / 2024 Karan Singh Sansi Alias Sonu S/o Shri Gyansingh Sansi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Nasirada Deoli, P.s. Nasirada, District Tonk, Present Plot No. 34, Pema Nagar, Cenra Bank Ke Pass, Ricco Area, Bagru, Police Station Bagru District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.S. Dhakar, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/07/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 05.06.2024, passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan- I, by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C., for release of the petitioner's motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ26-BS-0833, has been rejected. 2. It has been averred in the instant petition that the petitioner is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle, which was seized by the Police in connection F.I.R. No.230/2024, registered with the Police Station Bagru, District Jaipur(West) for the offences punishable under Sections 8 & 21 of NDPS Act. The learned Court below has rejected the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner on the count that when the search was conducted, the [2026:RJ-JP:29191] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6578/2024] contraband was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, while plying the subject vehicle and accordingly, the impugned F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 8 & 21 of NDPS Act. Hence, a prayer has been made for release of the subject vehicle in favour of the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the F.I.R. No.230/2024 has been registered at the Police Station Bagru, District Jaipur (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and in connection with the aforesaid F.I.R., the subject vehicle bearing registration No.RJ26-BS-0833 was seized since contraband has been recovered from the petitioner while plying the subject vehicle. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241 has laid down four criteria/ scenarios in Para Nos.33 & 34, which deal with grant/ non-grant of custody of the vehicle seized by the police, during the course of investigation, particularly, in cases registered for the offences punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act. 7. The Para Nos.33-34 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: “33. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:29191] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6578/2024] 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 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. 34. 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.” [2026:RJ-JP:29191] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6578/2024] 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioner is also involved in the alleged incident for which the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged and has been charge-sheeted as well, under such circumstances, he is not entitled to get the custody of the subject vehicle in pursuance of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey (supra). Hence, this Court finds no error in the order impugned passed by the Court below. 9. The Court below has not committed any error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, which warrants any interference of this Court, hence, the instant criminal misc. petition is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J 68/Aayush Sharma