Dr. Anshuman, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present Cr. Writ Petition has been filed by petitioner for quashing the order dated 30.11.2021 passed in N.D.P.S. Case No. 34 of 2020 arising out of Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 85 of 2020 by which, the application for release of Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No. BR06BH-5976 has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above said motorcycle has been admittedly seized in the said case and is lying unattended in the premises of Police Station, due to which its value is deteriorating day to day and it shall be of no use in case the motorcycle shall not be released for a long period. The petitioner is ready to abide by all conditions imposed by the Court. Learned counsel relied on a judgment in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 290 : 2003 (4) PLJR (SC) 244 as well as relied on the case of General Insurance Council and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others and others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 768. He further submits that D.T.O. report has been received before the trial court by which it is crystal clear that the said vehicle bearing registration No. BR06BH-5976 lies in the name of petitioner and this fact has also came in the report of Police of Mithanpura P.S. by letter No. 1818 dated 05.09.2021. It has also come that no communication was made from the office of Collector, Muzaffarpur, as such, the proposal of forfeiture/ confiscation of the aforesaid motorcycle is yet not been started.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the contention of petitioner and submits that the aforesaid motorcycle has been recovered from the place of occurrence. The said motorcycle is being used for conveyance for dealing with N.D.P.S. material. He submits that total 1.5 kg Ganja were recovered from persons who were riding the motorcycle. Counsel for the State further submits that the present case has been dealt by special law i.e. to say N.D.P.S. Act.

5. He submits that Section 63(1) states that “in the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharge, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under Section 60 or Section 61 or Section 62, and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order, confiscation accordingly.” Learned counsel further submits that the said motorcycle was used in commission of the crime in N.D.P.S. material. He further submits that the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai is not relating to N.D.P.S. material rather it is for those vehicles which were seized under the provisions of other laws.

6. After hearing the parties and upon going through the pleadings, one thing is crystal clear that this vehicle bearing registration No. BR06BH-5976 belongs to petitioner which has been supported by the letter of D.T.O. Section 60 (3) states as follow: –

60(3). Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance 2[or controlled substance], or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-Section (2) shall be liable to confiscations, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-incharge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.

7. As well as in the light of order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Kishore Yadav @ Hari Kishore Prasad Yadav vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. (order dated 18.07.2017 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 674 of 2017) this Court has held as under: –

“A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that confiscation of the vehicle cannot be ordered unless the owner is given opportunity to prove that whatever has been alleged to be seized was without his knowledge or conni