Uttarakhand High Court
(Under Section 528 Of Bharatiya Nagarik … vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 27 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5512
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.605 of 2025
(Under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)
Suraj Gambhir .............Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ...........Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Vipul Panuly, 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 09.04.2025, passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No.124 of 2025, “Suraj Gambhir
Vs. State of Uttarakhand” (FIR No.0047/2025) under Sections 8/20/60 of
NDPS Act, at Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital, whereby, the vehicle
release application of the Applicant for seeking custody/possession of vehicle
having Registration No.UK04AH 8903 (Thar) has been rejected by the
learned Trial Court.
2. Facts of the case as reflected from the FIR are that the aforesaid
vehicle was standing on damaged condition near Chambal bridge and on
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 605 of 2025, Suraj Gambhir Vs State of Uttarakhand & another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5512
search contraband substance under NDPS Act, 1985 was recovered from the
vehicle and accordingly offence under the provisions of Sections 8/20/60 of
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, was registered with Police Station Mukhani, District
Nainital against unknown person 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 UK04AH 8903 (Thar) 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. He requested vehicle to be released in his 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital 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
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 605 of 2025, Suraj Gambhir Vs State of Uttarakhand & another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5512
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
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
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.”
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 605 of 2025, Suraj Gambhir Vs State of Uttarakhand & another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5512
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
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.”
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 605 of 2025, Suraj Gambhir Vs State of Uttarakhand & another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5512
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 09.04.2025, passed
by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No.124
of 2025, “Suraj Gambhir Vs. State of Uttarakhand” cannot sustain and
deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
18. Thus the C528 application is allowed. The vehicle in-question is
directed to be released in favour of the Applicant after executing personal
bond of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 would not be altered, in any condition, whatsoever, and he shall
produce the vehicle either before the court concerned or before such other
Authority as the Court may direct.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dated:27.06.2025
Nitesh/
Digitally signed by NITESH RAWAT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
NITESH RAWAT
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e40
1cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108B32
4FFED3C8A159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT
Date: 2025.07.02 14:38:09 +05’30’
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 605 of 2025, Suraj Gambhir Vs State of Uttarakhand & another-
Ashish Naithani J.