Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1210 (RAJ)

RAJU RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-05-11

P.K.LOHRA

body2017
ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Failure of petitioner before Court below, in his pursuit for release of vehicle in connection with FIR No.75/2013 of Police Station Osian, District Jodhpur, has prompted him to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. The facts, in brief, are that pursuant to FIR aforesaid, after investigation, police arrested Hajari Ram and Sunil and submitted charge sheet under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act before Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The trial Court proceeded with trial and framed charges against accused persons for offence under Section 8/21 read with Section 25 and Section 8/21 read with section 29 of the NDPS Act. Upon conclusion of the trial, both the accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial Court by its judgment dated 3rd of April, 2017. As the vehicle Scorpio YIX, white in colour with Engine No.MXD4D23257 and Chassis No.D2D47105, owned by the petitioner, is seized by the police for allegedly carrying contraband, after conclusion of the trial, petitioner made endeavour for release of the vehicle before learned trial Court but the learned trial Court by its order dated 26th of April 2017 has rejected his prayer precisely by citing the reason that further investigation is pending against one accused Yusuf alias Lal under Section 178(3). It is also observed by the learned trial Court in the impugned order that while passing the verdict of acquittal, the Court has not passed any order for release of the vehicle therefore, it is not desirable to review the judgment rendered earlier for acceding to the prayer of petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of acquittal of two accused persons, the learned trial Court ought to have exercised discretion in his favour for release of vehicle under Section 452 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by learned counsel that even if further investigation is pending against one of the accused persons under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. there was no impediment in release of the vehicle on Supardaginama in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel, therefore, has urged that impugned order merits annulment and the vehicle in question be ordered to be released. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Learned counsel, therefore, has urged that impugned order merits annulment and the vehicle in question be ordered to be released. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.2000/2015 (Madavdas v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 30.07.2015) and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.315/2013 (Rana Ram v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 05.07.2013). 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I feel inclined to accept this misc. petition for temporary release of vehicle on Supardginama by relying on a judgment of this co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered at Jaipur Bench in Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 (1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 507. In that case, the vehicle was seized from accused for carrying contraband of small quantity just above the commercial quantity and it is in that background, the Court acceded to the prayer of the incumbent and recorded its finding that solely for the reason that the vehicle is likely to be confiscated after trial, conditional release of the vehicle on "Supurdagi" cannot be denied and interim custody of the vehicle can be granted to the incumbent on certain conditions. The Court laid down conditions for release of the vehicle on Supurdgi. The operative part of the order reads as under:- "In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to accept the petition. Accordingly, the order dated 20.01.2010 is set aside and the miscellaneous petition is accepted. The motor vehicle is ordered to be released on "Supurdagi" on following conditions:- (a) the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 1,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the car in the Court as and when required to do so. (b) the petitioner shall get the car photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case. (b) the petitioner shall get the car photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case. (C) 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 perhaps identifying them before the Court which is with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them. (d) the petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the car and not to lease it to anyone and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable. (e) the petitioner will not allow the car No.RJ- 02/TA-0305 to be used for any antisocial activities including for the purpose of carrying narcotics which may constitute offence under the NDPS Act." 6. In view of the judgment in Prakash Chand (supra), the instant misc. petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the vehicle in question is ordered to be released on adequate bond and sureties subject to other conditions mentioned supra.