Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 710 (RAJ)

GURPAL SINGH JATSIKH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2018-03-07

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases No. 2, Chittorgarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal Misc. Case No. 95/2017, whereby it has rejected the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C., 1973 filed on behalf of the petitioner for releasing the vehicle Swift Car No.PB-12-X-4549 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the vehicle in question') on interim custody, which was seized in connection with the FIR No. 379/2015 of Police Station Sadar, District Nimbahera for the offence punishable under Sections 8/15 and 25 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C., 1973 as the vehicle in question is lying unattended in the police station and if the same remains in the same condition for long time it will be damaged. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in 2003 Cr.L.R. (SC) 103 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if vehicle remains in police station for long period the same will be destroyed and in appropriate cases interim custody of the vehicle should be given to the person claiming for the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decisions of this Court rendered in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 719/2013 (Om Prakash Nagada v. State & Anr.) decided on 02.12.2013 and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 270/2015 (Mangi Lal v. State & Ors.) decided on 15.07.2015. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no other person is claiming custody of the vehicle in question. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal misc. petition and supported the impugned order passed by the trial court. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as decisions rendered by this Court in the above referred cases, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.2, Chittorgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.95/2017 is set aside. 8. petition is allowed. The order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.2, Chittorgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.95/2017 is set aside. 8. The petitioner may appear before the trial court which shall pass appropriate order for handing over the vehicle Swift Car No.PB-12-X-4549 on suparadginama to the petitioner on such terms and conditions which the trial court feels necessary for ensuring that the petitioner will not sell or transfer the said vehicle and will produce it before the trial court as and when required. The trial court shall also keep the colour photographs and copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle in question on record. The expenses of photographs etc. shall be borne by the petitioner.