Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Crlr / 1503U / 2026Vishnaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20724) on 1 May, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:20724]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 689/2026
Vishnaram S/o Sundaram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Aekalkhori,
Police Station Osiya, District Jodhpur, At Present House No 373B
Sector Vivek Vihar, Police Station Vivek Vihar, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shri Ram Choudhary, Public
Prosecutor
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
01/05/2026
1. By way of filing of the instant criminal revision petition,
challenge has been made to order dated 24.02.2026 passed by
Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in
Criminal Misc. Application No.136/2026 (NCV No.38/2026)
whereby application under Section 503, BNSS as filed by the
petitioner for Supurdgi of vehicle in question, stood rejected.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the registered
owner of the vehicle in question which has been seized by the
Police. He submits that the learned Trial Court while relying upon
the Apex Court judgment in Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam;
AIR 2025 SC 549, erroneously observed that the petitioner being
the registered owner of the vehicle in question from which the
contraband was recovered, is not entitled for release of the same.
(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 02:33:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:20:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20724] (2 of 4) [CRLR-689/2026]
3. Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court
erroneously interpreted the ratio laid down in Bishwajit Dey
(supra). While relying upon Para 22 of the judgment, he submits
that therein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has not held that there is any
bar under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 for return/release of any seized vehicle used for transporting
narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. It was rather held that
there is no such specific bar/restriction.
4. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor submits that the
petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle in question,
being falling under First Scenario as categorized by Hon’ble the
Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey (supra), is not entitled to get the
vehicle released in his favour.
5. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.
6. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat;
(2002) 10 SCC 283, Hon’ble the Apex Court held that valuable
vehicles and articles must not be permitted to be languished in
police custody for a long period exposed to elements, and directed
that interim release of such vehicles/articles should be ordered
subject to appropriate bond/guarantee for the same.
7. The aforesaid view was reiterated by Hon’ble the Apex Court
in Sainaba Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.; (2024) 13 SCC 382
whereby it was held that wasting assets particularly vehicles, must
be preserved by entrusting custody to the rightful owner.
8. So far as the judgment in Bishwajit Dey (supra) is
concerned, therein Hon’ble the Apex Court held as under:
(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 02:33:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:20:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20724] (3 of 4) [CRLR-689/2026]“22. This Court is further of the opinion that there is no
specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act
for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim
pending disposal of the criminal case.
23. In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act
and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, the Court can invoke
the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.
for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the
criminal case. Consequently, the trial Court has the
discretion to release the vehicle in the interim.
However, this power would have to be exercised in
accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of
each case.”
The Court further held as under :
“28. Undoubtedly, the Vehicle is a critical piece of material
evidence that may be required for inspection to substantiate
the prosecution’s case, yet the said requirement can be met
by stipulating conditions while releasing the Vehicle in
interim on superdari like videography and still photographs
to be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of
the Vehicle and accused by signing the said inventory as well
as restriction on sale/transfer of the Vehicle.”
9. Coming to the ratio as relied upon by the learned Trial Court,
the judgment itself lays down that the said discussion should not
be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be open to the
Trial Courts to take a different view, if the facts so warrant.
10. Most importantly, in Bishwajit Dey (supra) in concluding
paras, the Hon’ble Apex Court opined as under :
“34. This Court is also of the view that if the Vehicle in the
present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till
the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes
judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the
open. Consequently, if the Vehicle is not released during the(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 02:33:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:20:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20724] (4 of 4) [CRLR-689/2026]trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the
weather, its value will only reduce.
35. On the contrary, if the Vehicle in question is released,
it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to
earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be
repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large
(as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation
of goods).”
11. Taking into consideration the clarification as provided by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and further the ratio as laid down in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), this Court is of the opinion
that keeping the vehicle in police custody would definitely lead to
its deterioration. Further, keeping into consideration the fact that
the trial in question would take a considerable time to complete,
keeping the vehicle in question in police custody would serve no
purpose.
12. The revision petition is hence, allowed. Order dated
24.02.2026 is set aside.
13. The vehicle in question is directed to be released in favour of
the petitioner on terms and conditions to be determined by the
Special Court including interim custody till conclusion of the trial
provided he furnishes a Supurdaginama of Rs.50,000/- and surety
of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below.
14. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
45-Mak/-
(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 02:33:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:20:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
