Back
Rules Insufficient to Withhold Articles in NDPS Case
The has ruled that a mere by the investigating agency that seized articles are proceeds of drug sales is not enough to deny their release to the accused. Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary set aside a trial court order that had refused to return gold jewellery and ₹850 cash recovered from the of an NDPS accused.
Gold Jewellery and Cash: Personal Belongings or Drug Proceeds?
The case originated from a 2023 FIR under at the NCB's Lucknow Zone, Varanasi. The applicant, Sandeep Indrajeet Tiwari, was arrested on , and a yielded ten articles, including a gold chain with pendant, three gold rings, a gold bracelet, and ₹850 in cash. No other claimant came forward for these items.
In , Tiwari moved the trial court for release of these articles, arguing they were unrelated to the case property and that his wife had purchased the jewellery—supported by an estimate produced during proceedings.
NCB's vs. Established Law
The
opposed the release, contending that the jewellery and cash were purchased from
"illegal gain after sale consideration"
of narcotic substances. However, no direct evidence linked these specific articles to any offence.
The trial court dismissed the release application on , relying on the NCB's . Tiwari then approached the High Court under .
High Court's Observations: "Mere " Cannot Deprive Use
The High Court found that the trial court had failed to consider the ownership documents and had ignored the settled legal position. Justice Chowdhary observed:
"मात्र जांच एजेंसी की मौखिक आशंका के आधार पर किसी व्यक्ति को उसकी व्यक्तिगत जमातलाशी से बरामद वस्तुओं के उपभोग से वंचित रखा जाना उचित नहीं प्रतीत होता।"(Merely on the basis of an expressed by the investigating agency, it does not appear justified to deprive a person of the use of articles recovered from his .)
The court noted that there was no direct evidence to show the jewellery was the subject matter of any offence or that retaining it in the would benefit the trial.
Following the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Precedent
Relying on the 's landmark decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat ( ), the High Court reiterated that seized property should not be unnecessarily kept in police stations for years. Courts must photograph the articles, prepare a , and release them to the actual owner on a suitable bond or security.
The Final Decision: Fresh Application Permitted
The High Court set aside the trial court's order to the extent it refused release of the articles. It granted Tiwari liberty to file a fresh application within one month, along with documents proving ownership of the gold chain with pendant, three gold rings, gold bracelet, and ₹850 cash. The trial court was directed to dispose of that application within one month from receipt, following the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai .
The application was finally disposed of, reaffirming that oral apprehensions cannot trump established legal safeguards for an accused's property.
