The Allahabad High Court has allowed a criminal revision petition, directing the release of a vehicle seized in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. Justice Chawan Prakash set aside the order of the Special Judge, Budaun, observing that the revisionist, who is the registered owner of the vehicle, was neither named in the First Information Report (FIR) nor was a charge sheet filed against him.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident on January 17, 2022. According to the prosecution, police personnel intercepted a Honda Amaze car without a number plate at Girdharpur crossing, District Budaun. Two individuals, identified as Ajay and Suraj, were found standing outside the vehicle.
Upon search, the police recovered 3 kg of illegal “doda powder” and a country-made revolver from Ajay, and 3.3 kg of illegal “doda powder” from Suraj. Consequently, an FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 23 of 2022 under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Bilsi, District Budaun. While a charge sheet was submitted against the accused Ajay, the revisionist, Somveer, who is the registered owner of the vehicle (bearing number UK-04P6694), was not named in the FIR.
Somveer moved an application for the release of his vehicle before the trial court. However, the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS Act), Budaun, rejected the release application vide order dated March 5, 2022. Aggrieved by this rejection, Somveer approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Advocates Harshit Gupta and Ramanand Gupta, representing the revisionist, submitted that the vehicle owner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. They argued that the revisionist was not named in the FIR and that the vehicle was being damaged while detained at the police station.
The counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (2003), arguing that “it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period” and that Magistrates should pass appropriate orders for return pending hearing. They contended that Section 60 of the NDPS Act requires the involvement of the owner in the crime for confiscation, whereas in this case, the owner is innocent.
Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (G.A.) appearing for the State admitted that the revisionist is the registered owner but opposed the plea on the ground that the alleged vehicle was found involved in the crime. The State submitted that the Special Judge had not committed any illegality in rejecting the application.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Chawan Prakash examined Section 60 of the NDPS Act regarding the confiscation of conveyances. The Court noted that while subsection (3) makes conveyances liable to confiscation, it provides an exception if the owner proves the use was without their knowledge or connivance.
The Court observed that “Different Courts have also taken divergent views with regard to interim release of conveyances during the pendency of the trial in NDPS cases.” The bench cited several judgments, including General Insurance Council vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, where courts directed the interim release of vehicles.
Specifically, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bishwajit Dey Vs. The State of Assam (Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2025), noting that the Apex Court “has held that the vehicle can be released in favour of the owner if it is not found involved in the alleged crime.”
Applying these principles to the facts at hand, the High Court observed:
“In the present case, the revisionist is not named in the F.I.R. as an accused. No charge sheet has been filed against him. Hence, it is a fit case wherein the vehicle in question is liable to be released.”
Decision
The High Court allowed Criminal Revision No. 2901 of 2022 and set aside the impugned order dated March 5, 2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
The Court directed the trial court to release the vehicle on “superdari” subject to the revisionist furnishing a personal bond and two sureties. The release is subject to the following conditions:
- Preparation of a video and still photographs of the vehicle.
- Authentication of identification documents by the Investigating Officer, the owner, and the accused.
- An undertaking by the revisionist not to sell or part with the ownership of the vehicle until the conclusion of the trial.
- An undertaking to surrender the vehicle within one week if directed, or pay the value of the vehicle as determined by Income Tax law.
