Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 552 (RAJ)

Pannaram Jat v. State of Rajasthan

2020-06-29

DINESH MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.05.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') whereby petitioner's application for release of vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-04-GB-3800 has been rejected. 2. Narrating the facts involved in the present case, Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that on 03.06.2019, a pickup vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-32-GA-5418, being driven by one Bhavesh, was intercepted in which 151.65 kg contraband substance namely 'Poppy Straw' was found and seized. 3. Inviting Court's attention towards the documents filed along with the charge-sheet, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's vehicle was neither involved in the transportation of contraband substance nor recovery has been effected from such vehicle. It was asserted that the vehicle in question has been seized by the police simply because the main accused, from whose possession, contraband substance was recovered, has stated that the said contraband substance were destined to be supplied to four persons (including petitioner) who would come to take delivery in said vehicle No.RJ-04-GB-3800. 4. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the vehicle in question has been illegally detained for the purpose of evidence. He argued that admittedly the poppy straw in question was not being transported in such vehicle and the allegations levelled against the petitioner and his vehicle is only to the effect that had the pick up No.RJ-32-GA-5418 not been intercepted, petitioner's vehicle would have been used for delivery/further transportation of the substance in question. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that impugned action of roping petitioner and his vehicle is simply based upon statement of co-accused from whom contraband substance was recovered and there is not even iota of evidence indicating that the vehicle in question was involved in the transportation of impugned contraband. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner apprised the Court that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle in question and the same was in his possession on the basis of an agreement to sell. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the release of the vehicle submitted that in view of clear and categorical statement of the main accused that the vehicle in question was to be used for transportation of narcotic substance, it should not be released. 8. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the release of the vehicle submitted that in view of clear and categorical statement of the main accused that the vehicle in question was to be used for transportation of narcotic substance, it should not be released. 8. Heard and perused the record. 9. Upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that there is no material or evidence pointing towards involvement of vehicle No.RJ-04-GB-3800 in transportation of the contraband substance. 10. A probable or prospective use of the vehicle for transportation of the substance that too on the basis of statements given by the co-accused, in the present facts, cannot be a reason to seize and detain the vehicle in question. 11. No evidence or material has been brought to the notice of the Court justifying such detention/seizure. As a matter of fact, the vehicle has been recovered and kept in custody so as to be used in evidence. 12. In considered opinion of this Court the vehicle in question cannot be retained even for the purpose of investigation much less for proving the case set up by the prosecution. 13. If the allegation against the petitioner, who has been portrayed as buyer of the substance is to be proved, then the presence of the vehicle in question will hardly help the prosecution's case. 14. Upon perusal of list of witnesses, this Court finds that one Nand Kishore S/o Shivraj Singh (PW.1) has been shown as person to prove arrest of petitioner, Khumaram, Khetaram and the recovery/seizure of vehicle in question from petitioner. 15. Be that as it may, even if the same is required to be proved by bringing the vehicle in evidence, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the same in the yard of police/custody of the Court. By the time the case is decided, it's condition would be depleted to a great extent. 16. As an upshot of above discussions, the present revision petition succeeds. 17. The impugned order dated 21.05.2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Misc. Application No.42/2020 is quashed and set aside. 18. As the petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle, this Court is of the opinion that the vehicle be handed over to its registered owner - Khinya Ram S/o Khetaram R/o Gudamalani, Barmer. 19. 17. The impugned order dated 21.05.2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Misc. Application No.42/2020 is quashed and set aside. 18. As the petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle, this Court is of the opinion that the vehicle be handed over to its registered owner - Khinya Ram S/o Khetaram R/o Gudamalani, Barmer. 19. The trial Court is directed to release the vehicle No.RJ-04- GB-3800 (Chassis No.MAIRU4GHKF3L4-0436, Engine No.GHF4L57048) to the registered owner on furnishing an undertaking that in case the vehicle in question is required for investigation, he shall bring the same before the trial Court.