The court established that under the NDPS Act, a vehicle's confiscation can only occur after a trial, allowing its interim release pending legal proceedings if the owner proves non-involvement in unlawful acts.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present quashing petition has been on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 02.07.2024 as passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge IVth, Purnea in connection with K. Hat P.S. Case No. 238 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (C), 21(a)and 25 of the NDPS Act, where petition of petitioner as to release his Scooty bearing registration no. BR11BB1257 and mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 860153069758957 and 860153069258940 was rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge IV th, Purnea.

3. At the outset, in view of disputed report regarding ownership of mobile, as it was reported by Superintendent of Police, Purnea through letter no. 31 dated 18.01.2025 that same is registered in the name of Shivam Kumar Son of Ashok Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not press his prayer for release of mobile phone, for the present. Hence, petition is limited with dealing of release of Scooty bearing registration no. BR11BB1257.

4. The brief facts of this case is that one Red Black Colour Scooty bearing Reg. No. BR11BB1257 which belongs to this petitioner found involved in carrying 4.75 gram “Smack” and so from apprehended accused who was driving Scooty, one VIVO Company Golden color mobile, a black Knife from waist, ATM card of UCO Bank was recovered. The “Smack” is a prohibited drug in view of NDPS Act 1985.

5. For the aforesaid occurrence, on the basis of a written complaint, F.I.R. bearing K. Hat P.S. Case No. 238 of 2024 was registered under section 21/22 of the NDPS Act.

6. A petition for release of aforesaid Scooty was filed before learned Addl. Sessions Judge IV th, Purnea, by petitioner, which was rejected on 02.07.2024 by considering the provision of Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, as the vehicle in issue was used for carrying contraband i.e. Smack and thus same is subject to confiscation.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that confiscation of vehicle in issue is yet to be made and keeping vehicle in police station shall not serve any judicial purpose, where petitioner is ready to produce the same before the Trial Court as and when directed, upon release against adequate sureties as directed by the Court.

8. It is further submitted that in view of fact, as petitioner not appears connected in any manner with recovered “Smack” his vehicle cannot be confiscated. In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon the the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. The State of Assam as reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 40.

9. In this context, learned counsel also relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat as reported in (2002)10 SCC 283.

10. It is further submitted that name of petitioner has been transpired in this case being registered owner of the Scooty in issue.

11. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the quashing petition, submitted that petitioner is the registered owner of Scooty bearing Reg. No. BR11BB1257 and the same has been kept in the premises of K. Hat Police Station, where confiscation is yet to be made.

12. At this stage, it would further be apposite to reproduce the para nos. 21, 22, 23 and 26 of the Bishwajit Dey Case (supra), which reads as under:-

21. Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Further, even where the Court is of the view t