The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C to the release of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act, and the court's authority to order the release of the vehicle on specific conditions.

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar Tyagi, J. (Oral) - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C) for quashing/setting aside order dated 01.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula in case FIR No.219 dated 11.07.2019 registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the NDPS Act") at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula whereby the application for release of car bearing registration No.HP-66A-2157 on Sapurdari was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that on 11.07.2019, ASI Rajesh Kumar along with other police officials mentioned in the FIR conducted nakabandi on the basis of secret information that accused Birbal who is habitual of selling charas in Panchkula was bringing charas in car bearing registration No.HP-66A-2157 and stopped the above said car and on search in the presence of Om Parkash, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panchkula as per the prescribed procedure recovered 800 grams of charas kept in a polythene wrapped in parna worn by him around his neck under his green t-shirt. The FIR was registered against the petitioner and the petitioner was arrested and contraband along with sample seized from his possession as well as the car bearing registration No.HP-66A-2157 in which he was travelling were taken into possession by the police.

3. The petitioner, being registered owner of the above said car, filed application for its release on Sapurdari which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide order dated 01.10.2019 on the ground that 800 grams of charas was recovered from the accused who was driving the car in question and the investigation in the case was still pending and the challan was yet to be presented.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing/setting aside of the above said order.

5. Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Satish Kumar HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panchkula has been filed on behalf of the State in the Court which is taken on record. In the reply it has been submitted that the car in question was used by brother of the petitioner for sale of charas in Panchkula and the car in question is case property. The application for release of the car on sapurdari has been rightly dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula by passing well reasoned order as per provisions of law.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel and gone through the record.

7. Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to a poor family and the car in question is used by the petitioner and his brother for their day to day work. The alleged recovery has been made from accused Birbal and nothing has been recovered from the car in question. The vehicle is parked in the Police Station premises in the open since the day it was seized by the investigating agency and will become junk and go waste. The car can be confiscated only after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. There is no provision under the NDPS Act debarring the release of the vehicle on sapurdari. The impugned order suffers from material illegality. Therefore, the petition may be allowed , the impugned order may be set aside and the car in question may be ordered to be released on sapurdari.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Arjun Singh Yadav, learned State Counsel has argued that the car in question was used by accused-Birbal, brother of the petitioner, for sale of charas in Panchkula and is case property liable to confiscation and cannot be released on sapurdari. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

9. Section 451 of the Cr.P.C, which empowers the Court to pass order for custody and disposal of property pending trial,