AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 corresponding to Section 397 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 corresponding to Section 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is filed by the petitioner-Union of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.04.2026 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in Special (NDPS) case No.15 of 2026.
Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. K. Datta appearing for the petitioner-Union of India and also heard Learned Counsel, S. Ali appearing on behalf of the respondent-owner (respondent No.1).
At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case the vehicle bearing No.TR-04-D-1758 (Truck) was seized by the prosecution agency and before the Learned Trial Court there was a prayer from the side of the prosecution for confiscation of the said vehicle but the alleged owner i.e. the respondent No.1 appeared before the Learned Trial Court on 22.04.2026 and filed one petition for releasing of the said vehicle. However, the Learned Trial Court ignoring the prayer of the complainant-cum-prosecution released the seized vehicle on bail to the respondent-owner for which this petition is filed.
It was further submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Learned Trial Court suffers from infirmity and as such the same needs to be interfered with and urged for setting aside the said order.
Learned Counsel for the respondent-owner submitted that, admittedly the respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle which was seized in connection with this case and one Jakir Hussain (respondent No.2) was the driver of the said vehicle. The driver beyond the knowledge of the owner might have committed the crime and the owner had no information about the matter and said Jakir Hussain (driver) is still absconding.
It was further submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1-owner that in course of investigation the I/O send one letter to the respondent No.1-owner and she appeared [Annexure-A]. According to the Learned Counsel had there been any adverse report against the respondent No.1 then the I/O could have mentioned the same in the report submitted before the Learned Trial Court as she has not been made an accused in this case. Since, the vehicle has already been released and the prosecution before the Learned Trial Court also did not raise any objection against the prayer for release of the vehicle it can therefore be said that at this stage there is no scope to allow the prayer of the petitioner-Union of India for setting aside the impugned order.
In support of this contention Learned Counsel for the respondent-owner relied upon one judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in 2002 Legal Eagle (SC) 840 wherein in Para Nos.17 and 21, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:-
“17.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. Thiscan be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.
21.However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.”
Similarly, Learned Counsel also relied upon another citation in Denash Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 2276, wherein in Para Nos.34 and 35, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-
“34.Although, on a superficial reading, the present case might appear to fall within the second scenario delineated in Bishwajit Dey (supra), where contraband is recovered from the owner's agent (driver) who is arrayed as an accused, however, the application of criminal law cannot be reduced to a rigid or mechanical formula. Each case must be examined in light of its peculiar facts and circumstances. In the present matter, a holistic consideration of the record reveals that the facts do not align strictly with the said category for the following reasons:-i- Firstly, the appellant is the lawful owner with valid documents, and the vehicle was commercially engaged in transporting a valuable consignment of 29,400 MT of iron sheets. It is highly improbable to believe that he would risk both the costly vehicle and the high value consigned goods and his business goodwill by knowingly allowing narcotics to be transported along with the cargo.
ii- Secondly, the contraband, i.e., 6 kilograms of Ganja was recovered from the four chargesheeted accused persons.
iii- Thirdly, the appellant was not arraigned as an accused and the chargesheet contains no material suggesting that the appellant had knowledge of or connived in the offence.
iv- It can thus, safely be presumed that the said contraband must have been procured by the drivers and/or the khalasis without the knowledge or connivance of the appellant.
35.In view of the above, while the present case may technically correspond to the second scenario as enumerated in paragraph 29 of Bishwajit Dey (supra), the peculiar factual matrix warrants a more pragmatic approach. It would, therefore, be expedient in the interest of justice to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the appellant, as the overall circumstances clearly indicate his bonafides and
Relying upon the same, Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that this case is squarely covered by the said judgments.
Heard both the sides at length and perused the order passed by Learned Trial Court.
Being asked the Learned Counsel for the Union of India could not show any valid documents before this Court that, at the time of hearing of the petition for releasing the vehicle on bail, objection was raised by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner informing that the said vehicle was required for the purpose of trial and also for the purpose of confiscation.
Also after perusing the provision of Section 63 of NDPS Act, it appears that the trial of the case is not yet concluded. There is, however, scope for confiscation of the vehicle on conclusion of the trial. The Learned Trial Judge by the impugned order has simply released the vehicle on bail to the respondent No.1 with certain terms and conditions. The citations relied upon by the respondent No.1 appears to be most relevant for decision of this case. The citation as relied upon by the petitioner cannot be applied in this case as the same is distinguishable in fact with the present case. The prosecution Union of India at the time of hearing could not project any satisfactory grounds as to why the order should be interfered with. Moreso, the respondent No.1 has not been made as accused in this case. The petitioner Union of India also could not show any document before this Court at the time of hearing that the respondent No.1 had any knowledge about the alleged commission of crime by the absconding driver-cum- accused. Section 63 of NDPS Act provides scope for confiscation of the vehicle after conclusion of trial. Situated thus, considering the materials on record at this stage, this Court finds no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Learned Special Judge, (Court No.2), West Tripura, Agartala. Accordingly, the petition filed on behalf of the Union of India deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be rejected.
Since, the vehicle was released on bail with certain terms and conditions, so, till conclusion of trial there is no scope on the part of the respondent No.1 to change the nature and feature of the vehicle and furthermore the respondent No.1 shall produce the vehicle as and when called for by the Learned Trial Court.
In the result, the petition filed by the petitioner-Union of India is found to be devoid of merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed.
Send down the record to the Learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order/judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.