CRLMP/2875/2026 of ANUP SINGH SON OF RAGHUNATH SINGH, Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 11 August 2026

Order

11/08/2026

1. The instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 18.04.2026 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases (Session Judge), Sikar (Rajasthan) in Criminal Misc. Case No.53/2026, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 497 of BNSS, 2023 seeking interim custody (supurdgi) of vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-18-CB-2647 (Swift Car) was dismissed. The said vehicle was seized in connection with FIR No.102/2025 registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, District Sikar for offence under Sections 8/20 and 8/25 of NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, which has been

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-2875/2026] seized by the police in connection with the present case. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that no contraband article was recovered or seized from the vehicle in question. Learned counsel further submits that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the other co-accused. He submits that if the vehicle in question is not released then the same will get deteriorated in the police station as no proper arrangements has been made to safeguard its custody. Counsel further submits that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the settled legal position governing release of seized vehicles on supurdgi and has wrongly rejected the application, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, the present petition may be allowed.

3. Per Contra, learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and contends that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and custody of the vehicle used in the alleged offence is necessary for just decision of the case, therefore, the present petition may be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. At the outset, it is apposite for this Court to refer to the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that valuable vehicles and articles must not be permitted to be languished in police custody for a long period and directed that interim release of such vehicles/articles should be ordered subject to appropriate bond/guarantee for the same.

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-2875/2026]

6. The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 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.

7. Furthemore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam, 2025 INSC 32 has held as under:- “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.

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.

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 trial, it will

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-2875/2026] 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).” (emphasis supplied)

8. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and being guided by the principles laid down in the judgments referred hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the vehicle in question has remained in police custody for a considerable period and its continued retention is likely to result in deterioration of its condition; contraband article was not effected from the vehicle in question, trial in the present matter is likely to take considerable time in its conclusion, therefore, in these circumstances, continued seizure of the vehicle would not serve any useful purpose.

9. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.04.2026 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases (Session Judge), Sikar (Rajasthan) is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to release the vehicle i.e., Car (Swift) bearing registration No.RJ-18-CB-2647 in favour of the petitioner on supurdagi on the following conditions:-

(i) . The petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 3,00,000/- 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.

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-2875/2026]

(ii) . The petitioner shall get the vehicle in question photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case.

(iii) . The personal bond 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 photograph of persons identifying them before the Court, which is with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them.

(iv) . 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 it unidentifiable.

(v) . The petitioner shall obtain a valid insurance policy in respect of the vehicle in question within a period of three days from the date of its release and shall produce the copy thereof before the trial Court within seven days thereafter.

(vi) . The petitioner will not allow the vehicle in question to be used for any antisocial activities including for the purpose of carrying narcotics which may constitute offence under the NDPS Act.

10. Needless to say, trial court shall make verification of the fact that the petitioner is a registered owner of the said vehicle.

11. Stay petition and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 45/Manoj Solanki