Narendra Singh Mahar Alias Sonu v. State of Uttarakhand Anr

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. 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 station and the said vehicle be released in his favour in view of Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC.

8. 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.

9. He further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in the judgment of “Abhijeet Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand”, 2019 SCC Online UTT 265 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Bishwajit Dey vs. The State of Assam” (Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2025) delivered on 07.01.2025. 4 Criminal Misc. Application No.409 of 2025, Narendra Singh Mahar @ Sonu vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. Ashish Naithani J.

10. Relying upon these cases, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that in view of Sections 451 and 457 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, 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 it is evident from the recovery memo/F.I.R. itself that through at the time of recovery, the police party tried to associate independent witness but none came forward for the same.

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 and 457 of CrPC.

13. In the case of ‘Sunderbhai Ambalal Desi’ (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “17. 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 taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at 5 Criminal Misc. Application No.409 of 2025, Narendra Singh Mahar @ Sonu vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. Ashish Naithani J. any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of the applications for return of such vehicles.

18. 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.”

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. 6 Criminal Misc. Application No.409 of 2025, Narendra Singh Mahar @ Sonu vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. Ashish Naithani J.

15. For ready reference, para 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 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.” final decision of criminal 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.

16. Thus, the impugned judgment and order dated

10.03.2025 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set-aside.

17. Thus the C-528 Application is allowed. The vehicle in-question is directed to be released in favour of the Applicant after executing personal bond of `50,000/- and two local sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned along with an 7 Criminal Misc. Application No.409 of 2025, Narendra Singh Mahar @ Sonu vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. Ashish Naithani J. 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. Akash (Ashish Naithani, J.)

27.06.2025 8 Criminal Misc. Application No.409 of 2025, Narendra Singh Mahar @ Sonu vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. Ashish Naithani J.