Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 968 (RAJ)

Amarjeet Singh @ Amardeep v. State of Rajasthan

2008-04-04

K.S.RATHORE

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order impugned dated 23.10.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bayana, District Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 24/2007, by which the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for releasing the Tavera car on 'Supardaginama'. 2. The main ground for not releasing the car in question on 'Supardaginama' was that the car in question is involved in the offence under Sections 8/29, 8/20 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act. During investigation the petitioner was arrested and the police seized the vehicle Tavera car bearing No. UP-61/F-6032. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said car. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of (1) Bal Mikand & Roshan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 RCC 115 , (2) Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2002(2) R.C.C. 714 and (3) Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2001(1) R.C.C. 384 . 4. In all these cases also, the vehicle which was sought to be released on 'Supardaginama', was involved in the offence punishable under the NDPS Act and was ordered to be released on 'Supardaginama' on certain conditions. 5. Having considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and 'upon careful perusal of the order impugned dated 23.10.2007, by which application of the petitioner for releasing the Tavera car on 'Supardaginama' has been rejected, and after carefully going through the judgments rendered by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court, referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deem it proper to direct that the vehicle Tavera Car UP-61/F-6032 be released on 'Supardaginama' to the petitioner on his production of registration certificate and on his satisfying the following conditions : (i) The petitioner shall furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the condition that the Tavera car shall be produced in the Court as and when required to do so. (ii) The petitioner shall also get the Tavera car photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. 5,00,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the condition that the Tavera car shall be produced in the Court as and when required to do so. (ii) The petitioner shall also get the Tavera car photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the investigating officer, to be kept on the file of the case. The photographs shall be submitted in duplicate. (iii) The personal bonds of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and his sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photographs of the persons identifying them before the Court with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them and additional set of these photographs shall also be furnished to the Court and shall be part of the record. (iv) The petitioner shall not transfer the ownership of the Tavera car and shall not lease it to any one and shall not make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make it unidentifiable. 6. The criminal revision petition is accordingly allowed and the order impugned dated 23.10.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bayana, District Bharatpur is hereby quashed and set-aside.Revision allowed. *******