Back
2023 Supreme(Pat) 1387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SATYAVRAT VERMA, J.
Suresh Ray S/o Vindeshwar Ray – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7147 of 2022
Decided On : 11-12-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Anish Chandra.
For the Respondent: Harendra Prasad.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. regarding interim custody apply in NDPS cases, allowing for the release of seized vehicles even when they are subject to potential confiscation.
Headnote:
QUASHING - VEHICLE RELEASE - The court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's application for the release of a seized vehicle under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that provisions of the Cr.P.C. apply in NDPS cases, allowing for interim custody of the vehicle despite its potential confiscation under the NDPS Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order from the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting his application for the release of a vehicle seized in connection with an NDPS case, arguing that he was not an accused and had no connection to the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the application was improper as the petitioner had a right to interim custody under the Cr.P.C., and the vehicle's prolonged detention would render it waste.
Issues: Whether the provisions of the Cr.P.C. apply to the release of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act, and if the petitioner is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. regarding interim custody are applicable in NDPS cases, and the vehicle should not be kept in police custody indefinitely, as it would be contrary to the principles established in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order rejecting the release of the vehicle and directed its release under specific conditions to ensure compliance and accountability.
JUDGMENT :
SATYAVRAT VERMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Learned A.P.P. submits that in compliance of the order dated 05.10.2023, he had requested the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari to file counter affidavit but despite his best endeavour he could not receive any instructions.
3. The Court will not wait for the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari to file his counter affidavit at his leisure.
4. The present quashing application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Champaran at Motihari in Harshidhi P.S. Case No. 22 of 2021 corresponding to NDPS Case No. 07 of 2021, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Motihari, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing the vehicle, i.e. Tata LPT 1412 bearing registration no. WB-23E-9686, which was seized by the police in connection with the aforesaid FIR instituted under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court while rejecting the application for release of the vehicle relied on the fact that the petitioner did not submit the driving licence of the driver of the truck in question nor filed the original copy of the documents relating to the truck. Learned counsel next submits that no doubt, the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act yet by virtue of Sections 36(c) and 51 of the NDPS Act, the provisions contained in Sections 451 or 457(1) of the Cr.P.C. would be applicable as none of the provisions of the NDPS Act are in consistent with the provisions of the Cr.P.C., hence, in deserving cases the right of interim custody provided under Sections 451 or 457(1) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be denied and if the vehicle is allowed to remain in police station till the trial is not concluded, it will be rendered waste and thus would be contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that petitioner is a transporter and his vehicle was booked by one Keshav Singh for transporting the goods of the Express Logistics. It is further submitted that no doubt, the case has been instituted under the NDPS Act but then the petitioner has no concern with the allegations as alleged in the FIR nor he is an accused in the present case. It is next submitted that the goods of Express Logistics which were also seized has been released by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, NDPS-II, East Champaran at Motihari by order dated 02.06.2022 in NDPS Case No. 07 of 2021 arising out of Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 22 of 2021.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, in absence of instruction, is not in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Champaran at Motihari in Harshidhi P.S. Case No. 22 of 2021 corresponding to NDPS Case No. 07 of 2021 whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. seeking release of the seized vehicle has been dismissed, is hereby quashed and the vehicle is directed to the released on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall furnish personal bond of Rs.10,00,000/-with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, thereafter the aforesaid truck shall be handed over to the petitioner on proving ownership of the vehicle.
(ii) Whenever required by the competent court, the truck shall be produced on petitioner’s expense at the place directed.
(iii) At the time of release of th
