AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 25-08-2026
Re: I.A. No. 01 of 2026
The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 104 days in filing the present revision petition.
For the reasons mentioned in the interlocutory application, I am satisfied that the petitioner was prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this revision petition within time.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2026 is allowed and the delay of 104 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.
Re: Criminal Revision No. 458 of 2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Narcotics Control Bureau seeks time for filing the counter affidavit. However, I do not think there is any need for filing counter affidavit in this case for the reasons discussed hereinafter.
The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act, Begusarai in NDPS Case No. 27 of 2023, arising out of NCB Case No. NCB/PZU/V/09/2023, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for release of his vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-34P-4424 has been rejected.
As per prosecution case two persons, namely Dharmendra Yadav and Sumant Kumar were apprehended travelling in the vehicle of the petitioner and they were carrying 260 grams of heroin like substance. The matter was investigated and during investigation, it was found that neither the petitioner nor his driver who was driving the vehicle during the relevant time were involved in transportation of the contraband and they were not made accused in the present case which was instituted vide NCB Case No. NCB/PZU/V/09/2023.
The petitioner moved an application for release of his vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-34P-4424 but the same was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Court, NDPS, Begusarai vide order dated 16.10.2024.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no role in the transportation of contraband and he was not made accused in this case, even his driver was not made accused, though matter was thoroughly investigated. Learned counsel also submits that the application of the petitioner for release of his vehicle was rejected only on the ground that the vehicle was used in transportation of the contraband. If any person travelling in the vehicle of the petitioner carried any contraband/narcotic substance, the liability could not be fastened on the petitioner, moreover, when the petitioner was not made accused in this case. There is no material on record to show that the vehicle was being regularly used for transportation of contraband. Learned counsel further submits that even in the confessional statement of the accused persons, it has come on record that there was no involvement either of the petitioner or his driver, though one more person was made accused in this case on saying of other accused persons. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order could not be sustained and the same needs to be set aside.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Narcotics Control Bureau submits that the vehicle of the petitioner was found involved in smuggling of contraband and commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the accused persons who were travelling in the vehicle of the petitioner.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
While dealing with the seized vehicles from time to time by the police either in commission of various offences or abandoned vehicles or vehicles which are recovered during investigation of complaint of thefts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 observed as under:-
“In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court.
If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.”
It has been consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if the case property, whether it is a vehicle or any other article, is allowed to decay, it amounts to a national loss of resources. In the present case, the learned trial court has failed to point out the reasons for not releasing the vehicle. It has also not given any reason why the vehicle was required to be kept in custody furthermore and what was the requirement of the vehicle before the court during the trial if the petitioner furnishes undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the learned trial court. Therefore, on this short point, the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 is set aside
Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed.
If the confiscation proceeding has not been started, the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. BR-34P-4424 seized in connection with NDPS Case No. 27 of 2023, arising out of NCB Case No. NCB/PZU/V/09/2023, is directed to be released on furnishing all the necessary papers/documents of ownership and security bond/indemnity bond (not bank guarantee) equal to Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle in question as on date to the satisfaction of the concerned court, subject to the following conditions:
The petitioner shall undertake, in writing, that the vehicle, in question, shall neither be alienated nor be transferred/sold in favour of any third party during the pendency of the trial and that the vehicle in question shall be produced as and when required in the proceeding or otherwise.
To the satisfaction and any other condition to be imposed by the learned trial court.