Seized vehicles under NDPS Act can be returned on interim bond during pendency of criminal case, subject to conditions ensuring production and preventing misuse.

R.K. Bag, J.

The petitioner has preferred this revisional application challenging the order dated October 6, 2015 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, under N.D.P.S. Act, Malda, in Special Case No.11 of 2015, by which learned Judge of the trial court refused to return the seized vehicle to the petitioner on interim bond during pendency of the criminal case.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the vehicle bearing No. BW-65A/3030 belonging to the petitioner was seized on February 19, 2015 on the allegation of transporting 39 litres of phensedyl without any authority of law. Learned counsel specifically submits that the petitioner is the owner of the said seized vehicle and as such the vehicle should have been returned to the petitioner on interim custody during the pendency of the criminal case on any condition, but learned Judge of the trial court refused to return the seized vehicle to the petitioner on interim custody. He has relied on the decision of this Court in "Ainul Haque v. The State of West Bengal & Anr." (CRR 1152 of 2015 decided on January 7, 2015), in support of his contention that the bar under Section 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 will not be attracted in returning the seized vehicle on interim bond during the pendency of the criminal case.

3. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party State submits that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in the criminal case by filing supplementary charge sheet and that the return of the seized vehicle to the petitioner at this stage will be barred under Section 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

4. It appears from the impugned order under challenge in the revision that on February 19, 2015 the vehicle bearing no.W.B.-65A/3030 was seized on the allegation of transporting 39 litres of phensedyl without any authority of law. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said seized vehicle. The question for consideration of the court is whether the seized vehicle can be returned to the petitioner on interim custody during the pendency of the criminal case, in spite of having provision for confiscation of the vehicle under Section 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This issue has already been decided by this Court in "Ainul Haque v. The State of West Bengal & Anr." (CRR No. 1152 of 2015 decided on January 7, 2015). It is relevant to quote paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of "Ainul Haque v. The State of West Bengal & Anr." (supra) which are as follows:-

8. In "Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat" reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 the Supreme Court has directed the criminal court to exercise the power under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for return of the seized articles on some conditions pending final decision of the criminal case. With regard to the return of the seized vehicle during pendency of the criminal case the Supreme Court has observed as follows in paragraph 17 of the said judgment:

"17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."

9. In "B.S. Rawant v. Shaikh Abdul Karim" reported in 1989(2) Bom CR 209 learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court held that the provisions of Section 451 or Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not inconsistent with the provisions of the NDPS Act and as such the seized article or the seized vehicle may be returned to the rightful claimant as an interim custody on condition that the said seized vehicle or seized article may be produced before the trial cou