[ad_1]
Orissa High Court
Latika Digal vs State Of Odisha on 20 June, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3237 of 2024
Latika Digal ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Satyabrata Dash
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.Chiranjaya Mohanty,
ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
20.06.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the
learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State of Odisha.
Perused the application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. as well
as the documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present application, the Petitioner calls in
question the legality and propriety of the order dated 05.08.2024
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phulbani in
Criminal Misc.Case No.08 of 2024 which corresponds to CT
59/2023 arising out of Phiringia P.S.Case No.51 dated
30.03.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture
contended that the application of the Petitioner under section 457
Page 1 of 5.
Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned court in seisin over the
matter on the ground that the application under section 457
Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. He further contended that although
several judgments have been taken note of by the learned court
in seisin over the matter, however the relevant judgment dealing
with identical issue rendered by this Court in Basudev Singh v.
State of Odisha reported in (2022) 87 OCR 161 has not been
taken into consideration by the learned court in seisin over the
matter.
5. On a perusal of the application, it appears that an auto
rickshaw bearing registration No. OD-12-C-5306 was seized by
the Police in connection with 2(a) C.C.Case no.39 of 2023 arising
out of Phulbani Excise DI & EB Unit District Mobile P.R.No.122 of
2023-24 on 05.10.2023 which was registered for commission of
an offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the
Petitioner who happens to be the recorded owner of the auto
rickshaw has not been initially arrayed as an accused in the
aforesaid 2(a) CC Case. On such ground, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that the Petitioner being the registered
owner of the vehicle, is entitled to the release of the vehicle in
view of the settled position of law. He further contended that
unless the auto rickshaw is interimly released in favour of the
Petitioner, the condition of the auto rickshaw is likely to
deteriorate and the value of the vehicle likely to diminish rapidly
as the auto rickshaw is exposed to sun and rain.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the
other hand supported the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phulbani, which has been
Page 2 of 5.
impugned in the present case. Learned Additional Standing
Counsel at the outset contended that the vehicle was involved in
a grave crime like carrying contraband article and along with
such contraband article the auto rickshaw has been seized. He
further contended that considering the gravity of the crime,
learned court in seisin over the matter has not committed any
illegality in rejecting the application. Learned Additional Standing
Counsel also argued that in a case involving the offence under
the provisions of NDPS Act, an application under section 457
Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. On such ground, learned Additional
Standing Counsel contended that the learned court in seisin over
the matter has not committed any illegality in rejecting the
application of the Petitioner filed under section 457 Cr.P.C.
7. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the
learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the
application as well as the impugned order dated 05.08.2024
under Annexure-1 to the application.
8. On a close scrutiny of the order dated 05.08.2024, it is
observed that the Petitioner, who happens to be the registered
owner of the auto rickshaw made an application under section
457 Cr.P.C for interim release of the vehicle in her favour,
however, such application has been rejected by the learned court
in seisin over the matter by a detailed order taking note of several
judgments. On a further scrutiny of the impugned order, this
Court observes that the learned court in seisin over the matter
has not taken note of the judgment in Basudev Singh‘s case
(supra).
9. In Basudev Singh‘s case (supra), this Court had an
occasion to consider the maintainability of the application under
Page 3 of 5.
section 457 Cr.P.C. in a case involving the offence under the
provisions of NDPS Act. On a careful analysis of Section 457
Cr.P.C. and other provisions like Sections 51, 60 & 63 of NDPS
Act, this Court has categorically held that the application under
section 457 Cr.P.C. is maintainable in a case involving under
NDPS Act. Further, this Court is of the view that no fruitful
purpose would be achieved by simply keeping the seized vehicle
at the P.S. without proper maintenance and by keeping the
vehicle exposed to open sky, sun and rain under extreme
weather conditions where safety and security of the vehicle will
be a great challenge to the police personnel. Accordingly, this
Court has held that an application under section 457 Cr.P.C. in a
case involving the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act is maintainable
and accordingly this Court directed for release of the vehicle
subject to terms and conditions mentioned in Paragraph 35 of the
aforesaid judgment.
10. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the legal position,
further keeping in view the ratio laid down by this Court in
Basudev Singh‘s case (supra), this Court is of the view that the
impugned order passed by the learned court in seisin over the
matter requires consideration by the learned court in seisin over
the matter in terms of the judgment in the case of Basudev
Singh (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order dated
05.08.2024 is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded
back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phulbani to
reconsider the application of the Petitioner filed under section
457 Cr.P.C. by applying the ratio laid down in the case of
Basudev Singh‘s case(supra),
11. Let the Petitioner approach the learned court in seisin over
Page 4 of 5.
the matter along with the copy of this order within two weeks from
today. In such eventuality, the learned court in seisin over the
matter shall consider and dispose of the application of the
Petitioner under section 457 Cr.P.C. within a month after
providing opportunity to both sides.
12. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC
stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
RKS
Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5.
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH
Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 23-Jun-2025 15:22:29
[ad_2]
Source link