Gaurav Palariya v. State of Uttarakhand

Mr. Lalit Sharma and Ms. Anmol Sandhu, learned counsels for the Applicant. Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand. 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 11.04.2025, passed by learned Ist Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), Nainital in Vehicle Release Application No. 31 of 2025 (FIR No.01 of 2025), “State vs. Vinay Palariya and Others” under Sections 8/20/60 of NDPS Act, at Police Station Kathgodam, District Nainital, whereby, the vehicle release application of the Applicant for seeking custody/possession of vehicle having Registration No.UK04 AN-5265 has been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

2. Facts of the case as reflected from the FIR are that on

01.01.2025, during the maintenance of law and order situation and vehicle checking, on searching the vehicle No. UK04 AN-5265, contraband substance under NDPS Act, 1985 was recovered from the vehicle and Criminal Misc. Application No. 959 of 2025, Gaurav Palariya Vs State of Uttarakhand - 1 Ashish Naithani J. accordingly offence under the provisions of Sections 8/20/60 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, was registered with Police Station Kathgodam, District Nainital against present Applicant 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. The application moved by the Applicant was contested by the respondent – State saying that the vehicle was being used for transporting contraband substance, and therefore the application for release of vehicle deserves to be rejected.

4. The learned Trial Court rejected the said application saying that there was no reason to release the vehicle in favour of the Applicant.

5. 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.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records including police report regarding the said vehicle, grounds are sufficient.

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. Criminal Misc. Application No. 959 of 2025, Gaurav Palariya Vs State of Uttarakhand - 2 Ashish Naithani J.

9. 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.

10. Per contra, learned State counsel admitted that the Applicant is registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle.

11. 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.

12. 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.”

13. 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 Criminal Misc. Application No. 959 of 2025, Gaurav Palariya Vs State of Uttarakhand - 3 Ashish Naithani J. 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.

14. 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.”

15. 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 11.04.2025, passed by learned Ist Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), Nainital in Vehicle Release Application No.31 of 2025 (FIR No.01 of 2025) under Sections 8/20/60 of NDPS Act, at Police Station Kathgodam, District Nainital cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside, and, is accordingly set aside.

17. 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 Criminal Misc. Application No. 959 of 2025, Gaurav Palariya Vs State of Uttarakhand - 4 Ashish Naithani J. 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:25th July, 2025 SB/ SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822f bd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5 283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Criminal Misc. Application No. 959 of 2025, Gaurav Palariya Vs State of Uttarakhand - 5 Ashish Naithani J.