MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON ADITYA RAJPOOT V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JABALPUR, India, June 4 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on May 4:

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner-Aditya Rajpoot challenging the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, in ST no.17/2026, whereby the Court below has dismissed an application under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'the BNSS') filed by the petitioner-Aditya Rajpoot with the prayer for giving the Fortuner Car in supurdagi of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the Fortuner Car bearing registration no.MP16-C-6019, who gave it to his friend Shivam Rai in the morning of 05.08.2025 for going to Bhopal, but without knowledge to the petitioner, he handed over the Car to Nitin Dubeyaccused, who allegedly took the Car to Narsinghpur and committed murder of his wife by pressing her neck. He submits that although the Car was seized on 14.09.2025 from Shivam Rai, but the petitioner was not aware of the aforesaid acts of the petitioner's friend-Shivam Rai and accused-Nitin Dubey. He also submits that since the petitioner is not accused in the case and he being registered owner of the Fortuner Car, the same deserves to be given on Supurdagi to the petitioner with a view to avoid deterioration of the Car, especially in the circumstances when investigation is already completed and the vehicle-Fortuner Car is no more required in the case. He submits that without taking into consideration the aforesaid factual scenario and the existing legal position, the Court below has committed an illegality in dismissing the application by passing an unreasoned order. With these submissions he prays for allowing the criminal revision.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/state supports the impugned order with the contention, that the Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and in dismissing the application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Court below has dismissed the application with the observations that the incident occurred in the vehicleFortuner Car and in that regard, charge has been framed. It has been alleged by the prosecution that the vehicle is subject matter of evidence and upon giving the same in supurdagi there is every possibility of tampering of the evidence. The Court observed that prosecution evidence is yet to commence, hence it does not appear to be legal to give the vehicle in supurdagi of the petitioner.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/storage/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2026/CRR/850/CRR_850_2026_FinalOrder_04-05-2026.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.