Reshma Bee vs State Of Uttarakhand on 28 February, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Reshma Bee vs State Of Uttarakhand on 28 February, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
        Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 643 of 2023
                       28th February, 2025
Reshma Bee                                           ......Applicant
                                 Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                 ....Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of the present C482 application, the
applicant has put to challenge the order dated
22.11.2022, passed by learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.),
whereby, Misc. Application No.359 of 2022, “State of
Uttarakhand Vs. Touseem” under Sections 8/21/29 of
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sitarganj,
District Udham Singh Nagar, to release the Vehicle No.
UK06-BC-2836 in favour of the applicant, claiming
herself to be registered owner of the said vehicle, has
been rejected.

2. Facts of the case as reflected from the FIR are
that the aforesaid vehicle was intercepted by the Police
and on search contraband substance under NDPS Act,
1985 was recovered from the persons riding on vehicle
and accordingly offence under the provisions of Sections
8/21/29/60 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, was registered with
Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar (FIR
NO.392 of 2022) against the applicant and the aforesaid
vehicle was also seized. An application was moved on
behalf of the owner of the vehicle (applicant herein) for its
release, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

3. It was contended by the applicant that she was

1
registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle (a Motorcycle)
No. UK06-BC-2836; on 22.09.2022 her son had taken
the vehicle; the Police arrested Tahseem and sent him to
prison and the motorcycle was seized and was kept in
Police Station Sitarganj. The applicant further submitted
that the Motorcycle was standing under the sky and the
same would diminish its value.

4. The applicant made an undertaking that he
would not transfer the vehicle, and as and when the
Court direct, the aforesaid vehicle shall be produced
before the Court. She requested vehicle to be released in
her favour.

5. The application moved by the applicant was
contested by the respondent – State saying that the
vehicle was liable for confiscation under Section 60 of
NDPS Act, and therefore the application for release of
vehicle deserves to be rejected.

6. The learned Special Sessions Judge, NDPS
rejected the said application saying that the vehicle was
used by son of the applicant for carrying contraband
substance; accordingly a charge sheet was submitted
against him under Section 8/21/29/60 of the NDPS Act
being Charge Sheet and since applicant’s son is an
accused under the aforesaid sections, there was no
reason to release the vehicle.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is contended by learned counsel for the
applicant that the vehicle has been lying unattended at
the police station compound and the same is exposed to
sun and rain, thereby rendering it to natural wear and
tear and open to deterioration. There is no use of keeping
vehicle there in police station and the said vehicle be

2
released in his favour in view of Sections 451 and 457 of
the CrPC.

9. In support of his contention, he relied upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283.

10. He further relied upon the judgment of Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc.
Application No.368 of 2019, Abhijeet Kumar Vs. State
of Uttarakhand decided on 10.04.2019 and judgment of
this Court rendered in Criminal Misc. Application
No.688 of 2024, Sangram Singh @ Santosh Vs. State
of Uttarakhand and others decided on 07.01.2025.

11. Relying upon these cases, learned counsel for
the applicant submits that in view of Sections 451 and
457 CrPC and as the orders can be passed for release of
the property pending conclusion of the trial, if the
property is subject to speedy and natural degrade and if
otherwise, it is expedient, so to do, the release
application should have been allowed. This impugned
order suffers from illegality and is liable to be quashed.

12. Per contra, learned State counsel admitted that
the applicant is registered owner of the vehicle
Motorcycle No. UK06-BC-2836.

13. I have gone through the judgment and order
relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant rendered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court along with provisions of
Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC.

14. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desi (supra),
the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

“In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of
no use to keep such seized vehicle at the police

3
station for a long period. It is for the Magistrate
to pass appropriate orders immediately by
making appropriate bond and guarantee as well as
security for returning of the said vehicle, if required
at any point of time. This can be done pending
hearing of the application for returning of such
vehicles.”

15. The issue of release of vehicle involved in
transportation of NDPS substance also cropped up before
the Hon’ble Apex Court quite recently in Criminal
Appeal No.87 of 2025, Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of
Assam decided on 07.01.2025, in which case the Hon’ble
Apex Court has gone into the provisions of Section 60 of
NDPS Act in great detail with the help of various case
laws and came to this conclusion that in the absence of
any specific power under the NDPS Act and in view of
Section 51 of NDPS Act, the Court can invoke general
power under Sections 451 and 452 for release, pending
decision in the criminal case; the trial court has
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.

16. For ready reference, para nos.22 and 23 of
Bishwajit Dey (supra) are quoted hereinbelow:-

“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.”

The Hon’ble Apex Court has allowed the appeal
with a direction to the trial court to release the vehicle in-

4

question in the interim supurdagi.

17. Thus the impugned judgment and order dated
21.01.2023 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge
cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside and is
accordingly set aside.

18. Thus the C482 application is allowed. The
vehicle in-question is directed to be released in favour of
the applicant after executing personal bond and two local
sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of
the court concerned along with an undertaking that
ownership of the vehicle would not be altered, in any
condition, whatsoever, and she shall produce the vehicle
either before the court concerned or before such other
Authority as the Court may direct.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
28.02.2025
SK

5