SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 621

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JITENDRA KUMAR, J.
Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2022
(8.8.2025)
Smt. Sheelu Jha @ Sheelu Jha ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey.
For the State : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP.

Headnote:

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (NDPS Act), 1985 – Sections 60, 63, & 52A read with various Standing Orders as well as Notifications issued under the Act – Seizure and confiscation of Vehicles – Petitioner is praying for her Motorcycle used by the accused carrying the narcotic drugs as she is the registered owner of the vehicle – As per conjoint reading of Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act and the Notification dated 23.12.2022, it transpires that pre-trial disposal of conveyance/vehicles is possible under Notification dated 23.12.2022 only if no one claims right to possession and interim release of vehicle under the provision of Section 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act – If anybody claims for release of the vehicle, the Special Court has to hear him to decide liability of the vehicle to confiscation and it is proved by the claimant that he has right to possess the vehicle and it has not been used in commission of the offence with his knowledge or connivance and he had taken all precautions against such use, the vehicle cannot be confiscated and disposed of by the Drug Disposal Committee – In the present case, there was no reason to the Special Court, NDPS to reject the application of the petitioner for release of the vehicle in question to her interim custody, subject to the required conditions to ensure production of vehicle to the Court as and when required during pendency of the Trial and confiscation proceedings – even, the ground given by learned Special Court that the petitioner had not disclosed the source of income by which the vehicle was purchased is not sustainable – The ownership of the vehicle is not disputed, nor anybody else has been claiming to the custody of the vehicle as bona fide owner – Impugned order set aside, Motorcycle in question directed to be released to the interim custody of the petitioner, subject to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 25,000/- and to produce the vehicle before the Special Court as and when required – Liberty granted to the petitioner to the appropriate writ petition. (Paras 20, 38 and 39)

Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 379; Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241; Bhola Singh @ Ayush Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat. 855; Md. Hakim Khan @ Hakim Khan Vs. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 5977; Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283; Wilson C.C. Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker.) 627; Thausif Ahammad Bengre Vs. State of Kerala, MANU/KE/0426/2018; Binit Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat. 850—Relied.

Jitendra Kumar, J. –

Introduction

The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 30.10.2021 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in N.DP.S. Case No. 97 of 2021, arising out of Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 464 of 2021, whereby learned Court below has rejected the application of the petitioner for releasing the Pulsar 150 CC Motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR06BT-2837, Engine No. DHYRJD 26606, which was seized in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 464 of 2021 registered on 16.07.2021 for offence punishable under Section 414 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8/20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act.

Factual Background

2. As per the prosecution case, the informant/Police Officer along with other Police Personnel saw three accused persons viz. Keshav Kumar, Saurav Kumar and Rahul Kumar coming on two Motorcycles. But, on seeing the Police, they tried to flee away, but with the help of Police Personnel, they were apprehended. Keshav Kumar was riding the Motorcycle in question bearing Registration No. BR06BT-2837, Engine No. DHYRJD 26606, whereas co-accused Saurav Kumar and Rahul Kumar were riding another Motorcycle, but that Motorcycle was not bearing any Registration number. However, the Chassis number of that Motorcycle bears MD2A13EY6KCL11042, Engine No. DKYCKL-81583. On search, 60 sachets of Smack wrapped in white paper were recovered from the pocket of the pant which accused Keshav Kumar was wearing, besides one Mobile. 45 sachets of Smack were also recovered from the person of the co-accused Saurav Kumar and 35 sachets of Smack from the person of the co-accused Rahul Kumar. Both the Motorcycles were also seized including one which is subject matter of this case. On the basis of the search and seizure, the FIR was lodged on 16.07.2021 bearing Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 464 of 2021 against Keshav Kumar, Saurav Kumar and Rahul Kumar leading to registration of NDPS Case No. 97 of 2021 in the Special Court of NDPS Act.

3. The petitioner herein/Sheelu Jha moved an application before the Special Court, NDPS, under Section 457 Cr.PC to release the vehicle. However, the same was rejected by learned Special Court, by the impugned order, holding as follows: –

“From the records of the case, it appears that the Pulsor 150 CC motorcycle Regn. No. BR06BT-2837, Engine No. DHYRJD 26606 has been seized in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case no. 464/2021 dated 16.07.2021 U/s 414/34 of I.P.C. and U/s 8/20(b)(ii)(B) ND.P.S. Act. Keshav Kumar S/o Vijay Jha has been apprehended with the said motorcycle when he was trying to escape and from him 60 sachet of smack has been recovered

Reports have been called from D.T.O., concerned P.S. and D.M. Muzaffarpur in this regard. From the report of D.TO. it appears that the motorcycle bearing registration No. BR06BT-2837 has been registered in name of Sheelu Jha W/o Vijay Jha, having chasis No. MD2411CY9JRD01756, Engine No. DHYRJD266606. Same and similar report has also been submitted from the concerned P.S. By letter No. 2716 dated 14.09.2021. It has been communicated by the office of Collector, Muzaffarpur that proposal of forfeiture of aforesaid motorcycle BR06BT-2837 has yet not received by him from S.S.P, Muzaffarpur/concerned P.S.

It has not been disclosed by the petitioner about the source of income by which the motorcycle in question has been purchased. It appears from the FIR that it was being used as conveyance in dealing with smack.

Considering the aforesaid facts, 1 am not inclined to release the motorcycle Regn. No. BR06BT- 2837. Hence, petition dated 02.08.2021 preferred by Smt. Sheelu Jha stands rejected.”

4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and no way involved in the alleged offence. She is not even accused in the case. He further submits that in the alleged facts and circumstanc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top