The main legal point established is that while a vehicle used in carrying narcotic drugs is liable to confiscation, the owner can prevent confiscation by proving lack of knowledge or connivance in its use, and the court has discretion in ordering confiscation at the conclusion of the trial.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "The Code") the petitioner has challenged order dated 18.01.2022, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Hanumangarh, whereby, petitioner's application under Section 451 of the Code for release of his motorcycle has been rejected.

2. Precisely narrated the facts appertain are that on 11.07.2021 at around 7:40 pm the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as "I.O.") intercepted one Shabaz Khan and Sahil Khan, who were standing on roadside along with the concerned motorcycle (hereinafter referred to as "the vehicle") and upon search of the vehicle 13 grams of heroin was found under its seat.

3. The vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer, whereafter, the petitioner who claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle (RJ 49 SD 7863), moved an application under Section 451 of the Code for release of the seized vehicle.

4. Mr. Bhadu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle in question is not required in the trial and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. He submitted that in case the vehicle is not released, it would deplete and its condition would further deteriorate.

5. That apart, learned counsel also argued that on account of indefinite seizure of the motorcycle, petitioner's rights to move freely shall be affected.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that maybe, the vehicle in question might not be used in trial of the case, which is to be tried under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act"), but in case, 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 comes to a conclusion that confiscation of the vehicle is warranted, the same be ensured 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 18.01.2022, reveals that Court below 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 accuracy of the said order it would be appropriate to briefly advert to the relevant statutory provisions involved in the present case, namely, sections 60(3) and 63(1) of the NDPS Act and section 452(1) of the Code.

Section 60(3) of the NDPS reads as under:

"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 2[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."

Section 63(1) of the NDPS Act reads as under:

"63. Procedure in making confiscations.-- (1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly."

Section 452(1) of the Code reads as under:

"452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.--(1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession the