Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Radhagovind Sharam S/O Madanlal Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:19585) on 9 May, 2025
Author: Uma Shanker Vyas
Bench: Uma Shanker Vyas
[2025:RJ-JP:19585]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1995/2024
Radhagovind Sharam S/o Madanlal Sharma, Aged About 48
Years, R/o 15, Pratap Vihar Colony, Near 2 South Colony, Niwari
Road, Jhotwara Police Station Jhotwara District Jaipur (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2. Ghanshy Singh Ci S.h.o, Police Station Jhotwara Jaipur
West (Raj)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv., with
Mr. Sunil Kumar Chechi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, P.P.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Judgment / Order
09/05/2025
This criminal revision petition has been filed against the
order dated 29.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge,
N.D.P.S. cases Jaipur Metropolitan-I, (Rajasthan), whereby the
application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 451 read
with Section 457 Cr.P.C. for releasing the Motorcycle bearing
registration No.RJ-14-BN-7974 has been dismissed.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle and there is no
other rival claim for its release. Relying on the judgments of the
Hon’ble Apex Court of India in cases of Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 and
Coordinate Bench Judgments dated 14.08.2012 in S.B.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2682/2012, Phool Singh
vs. State of Rajasthan and in cases of Bal Mikand & Anr. vs.
(Downloaded on 12/05/2025 at 09:54:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:19585] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1995/2024]
The State of Rajasthan,1994 Cr.L.R. (Raj) 4, Prakash Chand
vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
No.416/2010 decided on 12.03.2010 & Laxman vs. State of
Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.61/2018
decided on 16.04.2018 and in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs.
The State of Assam; (2025) 3 SCC 241, learned counsel
submitted that vehicle be given to the petitioner on furnishing
‘supurdginama’.
Opposing the prayer, learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that vehicle in question was used for commission of offence under
the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (for brevity “the Act of 1985”) and can be subject-
matter of confiscation under Section 60 of the Act of 1985 and
hence, the petitioner is not entitled for release of the vehicle in his
favour.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
It is undisputed that petitioner is a registered owner of the
vehicle in question which has not been claimed by any other
person. Now, it is no more res integra that vehicle seized under
the provisions of the Act of 1985 can be released in favour of its
registered owner; though, may be an accused, if no order of
confiscation has been passed, which has not been done in the
present case.
In these circumstances, this criminal revision petition
deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order
dated 29.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S.
cases Jaipur Metropolitan-I, (Rajasthan) is quashed and set aside.
(Downloaded on 12/05/2025 at 09:54:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:19585] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1995/2024]
It is directed that the Motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-
14-BN-7974 be released in favour of the petitioner on
‘supurdginama’ on his producing original registration certificate
and on satisfying following conditions:-
(1) He furnishes a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/-
each to the satisfaction of the trial Court
undertaking to produce the vehicle in question in
the Court as and when required to do so.
(2) He shall get the vehicle in question
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.
(3) 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
persons identifying them before the Court with full
residential particulars of the sureties and the
persons identifying them.
(4) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer
the ownership of the vehicle in question 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 and produce the same before the
Court as and when required.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
DANISH USMANI /10
(Downloaded on 12/05/2025 at 09:54:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
