[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
(Under Section 528 Of Bharatiya Nagarik … vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30 July, 2025
2025:UHC:6659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.1216 of 2025
(Under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)
Ajay Singh .............Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...........Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned AGA, for the State.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral)
By means of the present C528 Application, the Applicant has put
to challenge the order dated 10.07.2025, passed by learned Special Session
Judge (NDPS Act)/1st Additional District & Session Judge, Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Release Application No.211 of 2025 “Ajay
Singh Vs. State”, whereby the vehicle release application of the Applicant for
seeking custody/possession of vehicle having Registration No.UK04AL4210
as well as Mobile Samsung Company Galaxy, has been rejected by the
learned Trial Court.
2. The Applicant is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle as
well as mobile phone.
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1216 of 2025, Ajay Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand –
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6659
3. It was contended by the Applicant that UK04AL4210 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 as well as
mobile phone shall be produced before the Court. He requested vehicle as
well as mobile phone to be released in his favour.
5. The application moved by the Applicant was contested by the
respondent – State saying that in the aforesaid vehicle contraband substance
was transported, and therefore the application for release of vehicle deserves
to be rejected.
6. The learned Trial Court rejected the said application saying that
there was no reason to release the vehicle in favour of the Applicant.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
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 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. Relying upon the aforesaid case, learned counsel for the
Applicant submits that in view of Sections 451 CrPC and as the orders can be
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1216 of 2025, Ajay Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand –
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6659
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.
11. Per contra, learned State counsel admitted that the Applicant is
the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle.
12. 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 of the CrPC.
13. 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 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.”
14. 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
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1216 of 2025, Ajay Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand –
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6659
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.
15. For ready reference, paragraph 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.”
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court has allowed the appeal with a direction
to the trial court to release the vehicle in-question in the interim supurdagi.
17. Thus, the impugned judgment and order dated 10.07.2025, passed
by learned Special Session Judge (NDPS Act)/1st Additional District &
Session Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Release
Application No.211 of 2025 “Ajay Singh Vs. State”, cannot sustain and
deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1216 of 2025, Ajay Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand –
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6659
18. Thus the C528 application is allowed. The vehicle in-question is
directed to be released in favour of the Applicant as well as the aforesaid
mobile phone, after executing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- 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 as well as mobile
phone would not be altered, in any condition, whatsoever, and he shall
produce the vehicle or mobile phone either before the court concerned or
before such other Authority as the Court may direct.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dated:30th July, 2025
Nitesh/
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1216 of 2025, Ajay Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand –
Ashish Naithani J.
[ad_2]
Source link