Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1028 (RAJ)

Rais Khan @ Raja v. State of Rajasthan

2009-04-15

S.P.PATHAK

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed against the order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases and Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota whereby the application for supardagi of motor-cycle has been declined. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the possession of accused 81.350 mg. smack was recovered while the petitioner was driving the vehicle and his motor cycle was seized by the police. According to the learned counsel, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the motor cycle lying in the Police Station and the condition of the motor cycle would deteriorate. It is also contended that investigation from the accused is completed and this motor cycle has no relevance as far as commission of the alleged offence is concerned. It is contended that in view of the several decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court the motor vehicle involved in the cases lying in the Police Station should be given to the registered owner on supardaginama as keeping the motor vehicle in Police Station would deteriorate its condition and no useful purpose would be served. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Hari Rain v. State of Rajasthan, 2002(2) RCC 714 and Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2001(1) RCC 384. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions and contended that the learned trial Court has correctly passed the reasoned order and that requires no interference by this Court. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the accused while on motor-cycle was stopped by the police and his motor cycle was seized and now investigation from the accused has been completed. 6. In Hari Rain's (supra) case, this Court while allowing the criminal miscellaneous petition observed that the jeep in that case was not claimed by any other person, therefore, it was in the interest of justice to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. 7. 6. In Hari Rain's (supra) case, this Court while allowing the criminal miscellaneous petition observed that the jeep in that case was not claimed by any other person, therefore, it was in the interest of justice to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. 7. In Vijay Kumar's (supra) case, this Court while considering a matter where the offences were under the N.D.P.S. Act and the Court taking into consideration the decision rendered by this Court in 2000 Cr.L.J. 2079 Khema v. State of Rajasthan allowed the application and ordered for supardagi of the jeep in question. In the facts of the present case, it appears that the motor cycle is lying in the Police Station and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in the Police Station and it cannot be denied that by lapse of time the motor-cycle will be of no use because the decision of the Court will take long time. 8. In view of the above, I deem it proper to allow this petition. 9. Consequently, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is hereby directed that the motor cycle No. RJ-20 SH 1678 shall be delivered to the petitioner on supardaginama on his producing original registration certificate and on satisfying the following conditions : (i) He furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-.with two sureties of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the motor cycle in the Court as and when required to do so. (ii) He shall get the motor cycle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chasis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer to be kept on the file of the case. (iii) The personal bond of the petitioner and the bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and his sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photographs of persons identifying them before the Court which is with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them. (iv) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the motor cycle 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 identifiable. (iv) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the motor cycle 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 identifiable. (v) He will not allow the motor cycle No. RJ-20 SH 1678 to be used for any anti-social activities including for the purpose of carrying narcotics which may constitute offender under the N.D.P.S. Act. 10. It is further directed on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner that original registration certificate be returned to the petitioner after keeping a photocopy of the same on record.Petition allowed. *******