Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 844 (RAJ)

Shiv Raj v. State of Rajasthan

2018-03-22

P.K. LOHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., 1973 to assail order dated 5th of October, 2017 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned trial Court') rejecting his application under Section 451 Cr.P.C., 1973 for release of Bolero vehicle bearing No.RJ-06-UB- 1853. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this revision petition are that SHO, Police Station Sadar, Bhilwara, while on patrolling duty, intercepted vehicle having registration No.RJ-06-UB-1853 and upon inquiry, it was revealed that the said vehicle was carrying poppy straw weighing 38 Kgs. Thereupon, FIR No.136/2017 was registered and vehicle was seized from possession of Krishan Gopal. Subsequently, charge-sheet in the matter is filed and presently trial is progressing in Sessions Case No.57/2017 before the learned trial Court. Being registered owner of the vehicle, petitioner was also named as one of the accused. 3. On behalf of petitioner an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C., 1973 is filed for release of the vehicle but same is declined by the impugned order precisely by citing the reason that offence is of serious nature under Section 8/15, 8/25 of the Act and further the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record. While it is true that the vehicle in question is seized for transporting contraband (poppy straw) but then since seizure of the vehicle more than eight months have passed and charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed, therefore, now in the wake of change in the circumstances and commencement of trial, it would not be appropriate to keep the vehicle idle for indefinite period. It is also noteworthy that there is nothing on record to show that contraband was recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner or he is involved in alike offence under the NDPS Act, therefore, being registered owner of the vehicle, petitioner is well within his rights to stake his claim for release of vehicle on Supardgi. A very significant fact, which cannot be eschewed by the Court is that the contraband (poppy straw) recovered in the matter is 39 Kgs., which is below commercial quantity. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. A very significant fact, which cannot be eschewed by the Court is that the contraband (poppy straw) recovered in the matter is 39 Kgs., which is below commercial quantity. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has placed reliance on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered at Jaipur Bench in Prakash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2010 (1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 507 . In the aforesaid judgment, the vehicle was seized from the accused for carrying contraband of small quantity just above the commercial quantity. 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 "Supardagi" cannot be denied and interim custody of the vehicle can be granted to the incumbent on certain conditions. The Court has laid down following conditions for release of the vehicle:- "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. (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. (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." 7. In view of the judgment in Prakash Chand (supra), the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order is quashed and set aside and the vehicle in question Bolero having Registration No. RJ-06-UB-1853 is ordered to be released subject to the aforementioned conditions and quantum of "Supardgi" determined by learned trial Court.