The central legal point established in the judgment is the balancing of the statutory mandate of confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act with the practical considerations of the petitioner's need for the vehicle during the trial.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') whereby petitioner's application under Section 457/451 of the Code for release of his vehicle has been rejected.

2. Briefly narrated, the facts relevant for the present purposes are that on 01.03.2018, a vehicle (RJ-07-UA-2858) was checked during patrolling and it was revealed that the same was carrying 1.700 kg. of opium milk.

3. After the charge-sheet had been filed, the petitioner moved an application under Sections 451/457 of the Code and prayed that his vehicle (Mahindra Scorpio 2011 Model) be released on 'Supurdginama'.

4. The trial Court, however, rejected petitioner's application inter alia observing that since it was used for the offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1985'), it is liable for confiscation under Section 60 of the Act of 1985 and if the vehicle is released, the same would frustrate the object of Sections 52A, 60 and 63 of the Act of 1985.

5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner requires the vehicle in question for his routine commutation and if the same is not released on 'Supurdginama', the petitioner's right will be prejudicially affected, as the trial of the case would take a long time.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petitioner's prayer and argued that the vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the Act of 1985 and if the Court proposes to order release of the vehicle, then, the petitioner may be directed to furnish a bank guarantee equal to the value of the vehicle so that if the Court ultimately passes an order of confiscation of the vehicle, its possession is assured or else at least amount to the extent of its value is secured.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.03.2022, reveals that the trial Court has rejected petitioner's application for releasing the vehicle essentially in the face of provisions contained in Section 60 of the NDPS Act.

9. Before delving into the correctness and propriety of the impugned order, it would be appropriate to briefly advert to the relevant statutory provisions involved in the present case, namely, Section 60(3) of the Act of 1985, which reads thus:

"60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation.--

(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or controlled substances], or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use."

10. A simple look at the provisions of Section 60(3) of the Act of 1985 shows that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated, if the same is used in carrying the contraband substance. Hence, releasing the vehicle or giving its custody to the petitioner on supurdginama will defeat the mandate of Section 60 of the Act of 1985.

11. But then, keeping the vehicle in police custody will also not be conducive. It will serve no cause. By the time trial is over, the condition of the vehicle lying idle and unattended will deteriorate and deplete to such an extent that it would fetch no price, if it is confiscated and sold.

12. This Court is of the view that requiring the petitioner to furnish Bank Guarantee equal to its value will also be inexpedient. Instead if the petitioner is directed to furnish FDR in the name of the trial Court, it will safeguard