Court in Bisltwajit Dey v. Sfafe of Assam, and prayed to allow the revision

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. CH. Vidyasagar Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER -,] HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDE\/I ' CRIMINAL REVTSIO N CASE No.60l of 20zl . ORDER: Challenging the order, dated 13.08.2025 Passed in Crl.M.P.No.786 ot 2025 in Crime No.226 ot 2O',t-!t of P.S' Sangareddy Rural, by the learned I Additional t)istrict and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy (for short 'trial Oourt'), this Criminal Revision Case is filed. By the impugned 'lrder, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 503 n'w. 497 of BNSS, 2023, seeking interim custody of the crime vr:hicle i e', Maruti Ciaz VIX+ bearing No.TSO8EU2375, was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr.CH.Vidyasagar Rao, learned cottrsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addrtional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitroner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the crime vehicle and the same is nec,lsisary to meet his day-to-day needs. The trial Court observed that Section 52-Aot the Act provides that vehicle has lo be product:cl before the concerned authorities i.e., Drug Disposal Commiltee, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 63 of NDPS Ac'. ln support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hor'ble Supreme 2 IS,l Crl.RC.No.601 of2025 Court in Bisltwajit Dey vs. Sfafe of Assam, and prayed to allow the revision.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional public prosecutor submifted that there are specific aflegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise wourd come out onry after conducting triar by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this revision.

5. ln Bishwajit Dey (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Cou( at para Nos.26, 27,35 to 40 hetd as under-

26. This Coutt ts fuiher of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restiction under the provisions of the NDpS Act for retum of any seized vehicle used for transpoiing narcotic drug or psychotropic subslance in the intenm pending disposat of the ciminal case. 27. ln the absence of any specific bar under the ND?S Act and in view of Section 51 of the l\lDps Act, ttlc Couti can invoke the general power under Sections 451 ancl 457 Cr.p.C. for return cf the seized vehicte pentling final decision of the criminal case. Consequenuy, the trial Couft has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with taw in the facts and circumstances of each case 35. l-his Coud clarlies that the aforesaid dr.scussrbn should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it wilt be open to the trial Courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant. Supreme Coud in similar facts in Sainaba v, State of Kerati, has released the vehicte. 36. ln the present case, lhis Couft finds that after conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Special Judge, ND?S Karbi Anglong. tn the said charge-sheel, neither the owner of the vehicte nor the driver has been anayed as an accused. Onty a third-pafty occupant has been anayed as an accused. The police after investigation has ' 2025 scc (3) 34 t ' QO24) t3 SCC j82: 2022 SCC Ontinc sct I 781 t E t t i I i i i i I I I I I i t I I I i E E I / 3 IS,I Crl.R.C.No.601 of2025 not found that the appellant i.e. the owner of the vehcl2, has atlowed his vehicte to transpotl contraband drugslsut'si'ances with his knowledge or connivance or that he or his a{'ett had not taken all reasonable precautions against such use Consequently, the conveyance is entitled to be released on superdari. 37. ln fact, the Supreme Couft in similar facts in Sainaba v. State of Kerala (cited supra) has held as under (SCC paras 6-e) "6. The appettant has urged inter alia thal as per Secl o'r 36-C read with Section 51 of the NDPS Act' Cnmtnal Ptocedure Code would be applicable for proceedings by a Spec at Couri under NDPS Act and Section 451 has an inbult pro tsbn to impose any specific condition on the appe ant while !eleasing the vehicle. The appellant is undoubtedly tlte regtsteL( d owner of the vehicte but had not paiicipated in the offa)ce a:; alleged by the prosecution nor had knowledge of the alleged transaction. The appeal is accordingly allowed lcavttl'J ltaies to

7. The learned counsel seeks to rely on lhe ludgtnert of this Coud in Sunderbhai Ambatal Desai v- Srate of Gujaral opining that it is no use to keep such seized vehicle at police station for a long period and it is open to the Maqtslrate l') pass appropriate orders immediately by takng a bortc' and a guarantee as wel/ as security for relurn ol t/re sard renrcle if required at any point of time. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for paiies aDd in the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of llte case and lhe legal provisions referred aforesaid, we arc ot ilte vE"\ i')at lhls is an appropriate case for release of lhe vehtr:le ot) t.ttt)s attd conditions to be determined by the Speaal Cc,urt 9. bear their own costs." tf the vehicte in the present case is kepl n lhe citslody of police ti the trial is over, it will serve no purpose 38. Ihls CoutT is also of the view that tf tlte vehile n the presenl case is altowed to be kept in the cuslady of o'-tlice till the trial is over, it will seve no purpose I ltts Coti lakes judiciat notice that vehicles in police cuslody arc sloied tn ll)e open. Consequently, if the vehicle is trct released ()tttitlg lhe trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vaganes of the '.t'eather, its value will only reduce. 39. On the contrary, if the vehicle rt qLtesLlott rs terleasec/, il would be beneficial to the owner (who wottld bc ablc [ ) carr] hts livelihood), to the banUfnancier (who woLtld l)e tepattt ltte loan disbursed by it) and to the society Li latge (as ar) ).ldtttonat vehicle would be available for transpodatior] af goods) 4 IS,l Crl.R.C.No.601 o f 202 5 T-\ Conclusion 40. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is allowed with direction to the trial Coutl to release the vehicle in question in the inteim on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining aI information/documenls necessa ry for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the investigating officer, owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the same. Fudher, the appellant shall not sell or paft with the ownership of the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial Coud that he shall surrender the vehicle within one week of being so drected and/or pay the value of the vehicte (determined according to ncotne tax law on the date of its release), if so ultimately directed by the Coutl.

6. ln view of the above said legal decision as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Criminal Revisron Case is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 13.08.2025 passed in Crl-M.P.No.786 of 2025 in Crime No.226 of 2025 of P S. Sangareddy Rural, by the learned lAdditional District and Sesstons Judge at Sangareddy and the Station House Officer, P.S Sangareddy Rural' is directed to produce the crime vehicle i.e, IVlaruti Ciaz VXI+ bearing No.TS08EU2375 along with photographs of the vehicle before the learned lAdditional District and Sessrons Judge, within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' On such deposit, the trial Court shall return the crime vehicle to the petitioner/owner of the vehtcle as interim custody, on proper verification of ownership, subject to the following conditions: 5 IS, I Crl R.C.No.601 of2025 (i) The petitioner/owner of the crime vehicle shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety t(l the satisfaction of the trial Court. (ii) The petitioner shall deposit all inforrnation/ documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, authenticated by the investigating officer, ownor of the vehicle and accused by signing the same. (iii) The petitioner shall deposit the original Re(li:;tration Certificate of the crime vehicle before the trral Court and the trial Court shall issue certified copy of Registration Certificate to the petitioner, to eneble him to ply the vehicle on road without there bt:ing any hindrance. (iv) The petitioner shall not sell or part lvith the ownership of the vehicle till conclusion of the lrial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial Court that he shall surrender the vehicle within one week 'lf being so directed and/or pay the value of the vehicle Miscellaneous applications, if any pendinS, shall also stand closed SD/. L LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,/ I i I i I i I I ,/TRUE COPY// \ SI=CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 \ The I Additional District and Sessions Judge' San Police Statlon SangareddY fn" Sirti"" House Officer, Sangareddy Rural ffX'3tb. to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of relangana at Hvderabad. [OUT] . lj'";"#i; il-, iit. viov"t"sar Rao' Advocate [oPUC] 5 Two CD CoPies Kam,/(l R Vk- HIGH COURT DATED:2810812025 I ORDER CRLRC.No.601 of 2025 1fl THt s r1 ( o 1 ,l I t? \l t- z j) \\{ t a i1 \ iP4 rC,HEO ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE * ."da X*