Suraj Gambhir v. State of Uttarakhand another

Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Vipul Panuly, learned AGA, for the State. H o n ’ b l e A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J ( Or a l ) By means of the present C528 Application, the Applicant has put to challenge the order dated 09.04.2025, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No.124 of 2025, “Suraj Gambhir Vs. State of Uttarakhand” (FIR No.0047/2025) under Sections 8/20/60 of NDPS Act, at Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital, whereby, the vehicle release application of the Applicant for seeking custody/possession of vehicle having Registration No.UK04AH 8903 (Thar) has been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

2. Facts of the case as reflected from the FIR are that the aforesaid vehicle was standing on damaged condition near Chambal bridge and on Criminal Misc. Application No. 605 of 2025, Suraj Gambhir Vs State of Uttarakhand & another- 1 Ashish Naithani J. search contraband substance under NDPS Act, 1985 was recovered from the vehicle and accordingly offence under the provisions of Sections 8/20/60 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, was registered with Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital against unknown person and the aforesaid vehicle was also seized. An application was moved on behalf of the owner of the vehicle (Applicant herein) for its release, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

3. It was contended by the Applicant that UK04AH 8903 (Thar) was standing under the sky and the same would diminish its value.

4. The Applicant made an undertaking that he would not transfer the vehicle, and as and when the Court direct, the aforesaid vehicle shall be produced before the Court. He requested vehicle to be released in his favour.

5. The application moved by the Applicant was contested by the respondent – State saying that the vehicle was liable for confiscation under Section 60 of NDPS Act, and therefore the application for release of vehicle deserves to be rejected.

6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital rejected the said application saying that there was no reason to release the vehicle in favour of the Applicant.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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 Criminal Misc. Application No. 605 of 2025, Suraj Gambhir Vs State of Uttarakhand & another- 2 Ashish Naithani J. station and the said vehicle be released in his favour in view of Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC.

9. 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.

10. Relying upon the aforesaid case, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that in view of Sections 451 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, it 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 the Applicant is registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle.

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 of the CrPC.

13. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desi (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “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 making appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for returning of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of the application for returning of such vehicles.” Criminal Misc. Application No. 605 of 2025, Suraj Gambhir Vs State of Uttarakhand & another- 3 Ashish Naithani J.

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.

15. For ready reference, paragraph 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 final decision of the criminal 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.” Criminal Misc. Application No. 605 of 2025, Suraj Gambhir Vs State of Uttarakhand & another- 4 Ashish Naithani J.

16. 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.

17. Thus the impugned judgment and order dated 09.04.2025, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No.124 of 2025, “Suraj Gambhir Vs. State of Uttarakhand” cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

18. Thus the C528 application is allowed. The vehicle in-question is directed to be released in favour of the Applicant after executing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two local sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned along with an 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. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:27.06.2025 Nitesh/ NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e40 1cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108B32 4FFED3C8A159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT Criminal Misc. Application No. 605 of 2025, Suraj Gambhir Vs State of Uttarakhand & another- 5 Ashish Naithani J.