The court upheld the denial of the petitioner's request to sell a vehicle involved in drug offences, emphasizing that such a sale would defeat the purpose of the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 28.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, in case titled Vineet Chauhan vs. State of H.P., vide which the application filed by the petitioner to sell the vehicle bearing registration No. HP15-B-3190 was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is facing a trial before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’). The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP15B-3190. It was impounded by the police and was released by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 11.07.2022 on furnishing Sapurdari Bonds in the sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also imposed the conditions that the petitioner would not sell the vehicle and would produce it as and when directed to do so. The petitioner is under treatment. The vehicle was financed by ICICI Bank, Solan. The petitioner is not in a position to pay the monthly instalment. The Bank agreed to settle the dues at Rs.2,50,000/-. The petitioner is not in a position to pay the amount; hence, he sought permission to sell the vehicle to pay the dues.

3. The application was opposed by the State, asserting that the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions, which were imposed by the learned Trial Court. The vehicle may be required during the evidence; hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed.

4. Learned Trial Court held that the vehicle was released subject to certain conditions. The matter is pending before the learned Trial Court, and the vehicle would be required during the trial. Therefore, the vehicle could not be released to the petitioner, and the application was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner has filed the present revision, asserting that the petitioner required the money for settling the dues of the ICICI Bank. The petitioner is not in a position to pay the instalments to the Bank as he is admitted to the Rehabilitation Centre. He would generate the money by selling the vehicle. Learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application; hence, it was prayed that the petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

6. The petition is opposed by filing a reply making preliminary submissions regarding the lack of maintainability, and the petitioner having not approached the Court with clean hands. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that the petitioner was found in possession of 15.15 grams of heroin when he was in the vehicle. The vehicle is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The trial is not concluded, and the vehicle would be required during the trial, therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have heard Ms. Tim Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

8. Ms. Tim Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. He is undergoing treatment and is not in a position to pay the instalments. He had settled the dues with the Bank and needs to sell the vehicle to clear the dues. Learned Trial Court failed to consider this aspect; hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

9. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the vehicle is likely to be confiscated at the end of the trial in case of conviction of the petitioner. If the petitioner is permitted to sell the vehicle, it cannot be confiscated, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

10. I have given considerable thoug