ORDER

The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the impugned order dated 28.06.2016 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Gopalganj in Trial No. 39 of 2015/27 of 2016 arising out of Bijaipur PS Case No. 131/2015 registered for an offence punishable under Sections 8, 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act and for releasing the motorcycle bearing No. U.P. 52 AF 8259 and a mobile of Gionee Company bearing IMEI No. 8676450205 and its sim of mobile No. 9628877640.

2. The factual matrix as emerging from the record is that on a written report of informant Chandan Kumar, Bijaipur PS Case No. 131/2015 was registered for an offence punishable under Sections 8, 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act against Sahebzada @ Gabbar and Bhola Singh @ Ayush. As per FIR, the accused persons were driving the motorcycle in question and during vehicle checking, they attempted to drive fast, whereupon, they were stopped and checked, whereupon, from the dickey of the motorcycle 1.9 Kilograms of Ganja was seized. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken against both the accused persons. Even charge has been framed against them on 18.02.2016.

3. It further transpires that during trial, the application was moved on behalf of the petitioner who is an accused also, for releasing the motorcycle bearing No. U.P. 52 AF 8259 and a mobile of Gionee Company bearing IMEI No. 8676450205 and its sim of mobile No. 9628877640 which are kept in Bijaipur police station campus in the open sky, submitting that he is owner of the vehicle and mobile in question and he has been falsely implicated in the case, as he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. However, the application was dismissed by the impugned order holding as follows: –

“As per report received from Senior Deputy Collector, District Legal Cell, Gopalganj, report has been sought by him from Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj whether confiscation proceeding has been initiated or not.

As per report from police Sub-Inspector, Ram Vinay Singh of Bijaipur Police Station dated 10.06.2016 the motorcycle and mobile are kept in police station campus in safe condition. Hence, it is clear that Ganja has been seized from the motorcycle of the applicant which is a serious offence. In such condition, the application of applicant is dismissed.”

4. Heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. APP for the State.

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ld. Special Court has failed to appreciate the law regarding release of vehicles interim custody, allegedly involved in NDPS cases. He further submits that there was no occasion for the Ld. Special Court to ask for report from the police regarding initiation of confiscation proceeding, because confiscation proceeding is not initiated by the police but by the Special Court itself under Section 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act. He also submits that there is no bar in the NDPS Act to release the vehicle to interim custody of its rightful owner till conclusion of the trial and confiscation proceeding, because otherwise the vehicle would turn into scrap/junk if it is kept in campus of the police station even in safe condition and it would be neither in the interest of the owner or the State. It would be sheer wastage of the national resources. Conditions could have been imposed for such release of the vehicle to the owner to ensure that vehicle is produced before the court whenever it is required during trial or confiscation proceeding, but rejection of the application for releasing the vehicle to interim custody is no way legally sustainable on the ground that the same is kept in campus of the police station in safe condition.

6. Per contra Ld. APP for the State defends the impugned order submitting that the vehicle which is allegedly involved in commission of the alleged offence under the NDPS Act is liable to confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act and hence, cannot be released even to the bonafide owner of the vehicle. H