The Rajasthan High Court has directed the release of a seized car to its registered owner after observing that the alleged contraband was recovered from the house of an accused and not from the vehicle itself. The decision was delivered by Justice Sunil Beniwal in Manish Jat v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6682/2026.
Background of the Case
The registered owner approached the High Court after the trial court refused to release the car seized in connection with a contraband-related criminal case. The vehicle was being used by the owner's power of attorney holder, who was an accused in the matter.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the contraband had been recovered from the accused's house and not from the car. The vehicle had been seized based on an allegation that it had been used to transport the contraband. The prosecution opposed the release application but could not dispute that no contraband had been recovered from the vehicle itself.
High Court's Observations
The High Court considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam. These decisions address the custody and interim release of seized vehicles and the need to avoid keeping them idle in police stations for extended periods.
The Court observed that the circumstances of the present case differed from situations in which contraband is recovered directly from a vehicle. It also considered that prolonged police custody could cause the vehicle to deteriorate and lose value while the criminal proceedings continued.
Conditions for Release
The High Court directed the trial court to release the car after verifying the registered owner's identity and ownership documents. The owner must execute a supurdginama or indemnity bond and furnish two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The owner must preserve the vehicle's condition and identification particulars and produce it before the court whenever required for identification as case property. The trial court may impose additional appropriate conditions.
Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of the seized vehicle subject to the prescribed safeguards. The ruling highlights the importance of balancing the preservation of property with the requirements of criminal proceedings.
The decision does not determine the accused's guilt or innocence in the underlying criminal case. It concerns the interim custody of the vehicle in light of the specific facts and the applicable judicial principles.
Case: Manish Jat v. State of Rajasthan
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6682/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:50603
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Justice Sunil Beniwal