The court held that a seized vehicle may be released pending trial if the owner proves lack of knowledge of its illegal use, as per NDPS Act and CrPC provisions.

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 filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the learned 15^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in NDPS Special P.S. Case No. 66/2021 in NCB Crime No. 20 of 2021 by which the learned court below was pleased to rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration no. NL 01K 1622 which was seized by the NCB in NCB crime no. 20 of 2021.

3. The brief facts of this case is that one 18 wheeler heavy weight troller (Truck) bearing Reg. No. NL 01K 1622 which belongs to this petitioner found involved in carrying 350 Kg of “Ganja” which is 17.5 times more than commercial quantity of “Ganja”. The “Ganja” is a prohibited drug in view of NDPS Act 1985.

4. For the aforesaid occurrence, on the basis of a written complaint, NDPS Case No. 66/2021 dated 14.03.2022 in NCB crime no. 20 of 2021 was registered under section 20(b)(2)(c), 25, 29 of NDPS Act.

5. A petition for release of aforesaid 18 wheeler heavy weight troller (Truck) was pressed before learned 15^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, by petitioner, which was rejected on 16.03.2023, 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. Ganja and thus same is subject to confiscation.

6. 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, after its release, against adequate sureties, as directed by the Court.

7. It is further submitted that in view of fact, as petitioner not appears connected in any manner with recovered “Ganja” 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.

8. 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.

9. It is further submitted that name of petitioner has been transpired in this case only being registered owner of the 18 wheeler heavy weight troller (Truck) found carrying “Ganja”.

10. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the quashing petition, submitted that petitioner is the registered owner of 18 wheeler heavy weight troller (Truck) bearing Reg. No. NL 01K 1622, which was involved in carrying 350 Kg of “Ganja”.

11. 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 that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicl