SURESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. Petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-accused being registered owner of the vehicle KWID Renault No.RJ46-CA-1198 (Model 2017), aggrieved against the order dtd. 9/2/2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.1, Chittorgarh, whereby the learned Special Judge rejected the application under Sec. 451 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for Supurdginama/handing over the custody of vehicle in question during trial to him.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.86/2023 decided on 25/1/2023 submits that police has falsely implicated the petitioner-accused as illegal recovery was effected from the vehicle itself. He further submits that the vehicle in question is lying unattended and likely to devalue, if the same remains lying open in the police station during trial. He further submits that the learned trial Court has dismissed the application for releasing the vehicle on supurdginama on the ground that there is a provision of confiscation of the vehicle under Sec. 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (-NDPS Act' for short) but the same cannot be resorted at the preliminary stage. He further submits that the present petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle in question and there is no doubt regarding ownership of the vehicle in question and the certified copies has already been placed on record by him before the learned trial Court. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to agree on any terms and conditions imposed by this Court.

(3.) Aforesaid contentions are opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that in the present case, the accused-petitioner is a principal accused, who is facing trial for illegal transportation of the narcotic goods. He further submits that prima facie there is an evidence on record regarding involvement of the petitioner-accused in commission of crime thus, considering the proviso to Sec. 60 (3) of the NDPS Act, custody of the vehicle in question cannot be handed over to petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.