The denial of vehicle release based solely on spouse's relationship to an accused is legally unsound; the court favors owner's rights and anticipates misuse must be substantiated.

Judgment

Mr. Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.

CRM-39830-2023

Application for condonation of 334 days’ delay in filing the revision petition.

Notice of the application to the non-applicant/respondent.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Ashok S. Chaudhry, Addl. A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent and raises no objection.

In view of the above and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Delay of 334 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

MAIN CASE

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.07.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra (for short ‘trial Court’), whereby an application of the petitioner for releasing her motorcycle-Splendor Plus, registration No.HR-01-AV-4513, on Sapurdari was declined.

2. It transpires that husband of petitioner, namely, Salman, was driving above motorcycle and certain contraband had been recovered from the accused-husband. In this regard, FIR No.277 dated 23.04.2022, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) came to be registered at Police Station Sadar, Thanesar, District Kurukshatra and the motorcycle was also impounded by the Police. Both sides acknowledged that trial is pending for 11.12.2023 for awaiting the FSL report and charges are yet to be considered by the Court concerned.

3. Petitioner is claiming to be the registered owner of motorcycle. She filed an application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing the vehicle on Sapurdari, but was rejected by learned trial Court. Hence, present revision.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that she is the registered owner of motorcycle; charges in the matter are yet to be considered; proceedings before learned trial Court will take sufficient long time, hence, no purpose would be served by keeping the motorcycle in Police Station; rather shall deteriorate its value.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel after obtaining instructions is not able to dispute the factum of ownership of motorcycle as well as status of trial; but opposed the prayer on the premise that in case vehicle is released, it may be misused again for the similar purpose.

6. Heard both sides and perused the paper-book.

7. Concededly, petitioner is the registered owner of motorcycle and her application for releasing the same on Sapurdari was dismissed by learned trial Court, inter alia, observing as under:-

“Accordingly, in the case in hand, it can be said that the registered owner, who is wife of the accused cannot be said to have no knowledge of possessing of contraband by her husband. In case the vehicle is released, there are chances that it may be again used for transportation purposes of illicit drug. As such, the application in hand is hereby dismissed. The applicant stand disposed of accordingly.”

8. Perusal of the above extract reveals that learned trial Court declined the prayer precisely on two counts:-

(i) petitioner being wife of the accused cannot be said that she was not having knowledge about the possession of contraband;

(ii) in case the motorcycle is released, there are chances that it may be misused again for similar purpose.

9. No doubt, petitioner is the wife of accused and some contraband is alleged to have been recovered from him; but it does not mean that she was having the knowledge about motorcycle being used for transportation of illicit drug; nor there can be an absolute proposition of law that a wife wo