[2026:RJ-JP:7372] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1467/2025 Sahnaz Bano W/o Sh. Arif Hussain, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 14, Shekhawat Colony Churu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Majhar Hussain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 16/02/2026 : Instant revision petition under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred on behalf of petitioner against the impugned order dt.18.07.2025 passed by Court of ld. Special Judge, Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act Cases (Sessions Judge), Jhunjhunu, in Criminal Misc. Case (supurdgi Application) No.346/2025. By the said order, the application under Section 497 of B.N.S.S., 2023 filed by petitioner seeking custody of the vehicle i.e. Innova Car bearing registration No.RJ-10-UA-8707, was dismissed and the vehicle, in question has not been released on ‘supurdgi’. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle-in-question and the alleged contraband has not been recovered from the said vehicle. Therefore, he is entitled to custody of the vehicle on ‘supurdgi’. Counsel further submits that the ld. trial Court, while dismissing the application vide order dt.18.07.2025 did not consider the fact that till the date of dismissal of the said application, neither the petitioner had been [2026:RJ-JP:7372] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1467/2025] arrested nor investigation had been completed in the matter. Later-on, Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner on the basis of the fact that the petitioner is an accused in the present case, which pertains to the NDPS Act, however, she was granted bail by the ld. trial Court. Therefore, the present revision petition may be allowed. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, while supporting the order impugned passed by the ld. trial Court, prays for rejection of the petition. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties & have gone through the impugned order as well as the material made available on record. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the ld. Trial Court, while rejecting the application for custody of the vehicle, did not consider the fact that at the time of deciding the application, the petitioner had not been arrested. Rather, the petitioner was subsequently, arrested by the Investigating Officer as an accused in the present case, which pertains to NDPS Act. Considering the overall facts & circumstances of the case and the submissions made at bar, this Court is of the opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the ld. trial Court by filing a fresh application for custody of the vehicle-in-question. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the ld. trial Court by filing a fresh application for custody of the vehicle-in-question, wherein all the grounds urged in the present revision petition may also be taken. It is also ordered that in the event the petitioner approaches the ld. trial Court, the said Court shall decide the matter within a period [2026:RJ-JP:7372] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1467/2025] of 15-days, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties but without being influenced by any observations made herein. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK