Seized cash can be released pending trial, as no provision in the NDPS Act bars interim custody; courts must evaluate based on necessity and property owner rights.

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

Present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) read with Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. [now Section 528, 497(1), 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) respectively] seeking quashing of impugned order dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, in FIR No.331 dated 23.07.2019 under Sections 15 , 25 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), registered at Police Station Butana, District Karnal, vide which application filed by the petitioner to release the cash amount of Rs.4,50,000 on supardari was dismissed.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that on 23.07.2019, the police while patrolling from Karnal to Taraori identified one black coloured Splender Plus motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-05-AU-1458 and on reaching adjacent to them, co-accused threw a heavy bag on the footpath, from which poppy husk weighing 02 kg and 100 grams was recovered. Thereafter, in the disclosure statement made by Sukhbir @ Bittu and Rakesh (co-accused), it was alleged that the petitioner was supplier of the narcotic substance and thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2021. During custody of petitioner, recovery of one Verna car bearing registration No.HR-05-AQ-9126 and cash amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was affected therefrom. However, no recovery of narcotic substance from the conscious possession of the petitioner was affected. Subsequently, the petitioner was released on regular bail by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal vide order dated 18.08.2021 (Annexure P-2).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR (supra) and he was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Additionally, the car was released on superdari vide order dated 18.06.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, however, the amount (supra) is still confiscated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that it is immaterial whether the amount recovered is out of proceeds of narcotic substance or otherwise.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel contends that the petitioner was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, from whose possession 02 kg and 100 grams of poppy husk was recovered. Further, the cash amount recovered from the petitioner is the case property being proceeds from sale of narcotic substance and the same are amenable to confiscation and no question of release of cash amount on superdari arises.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that no purpose is going to be served by keeping the currency for long duration in police custody and further, there is no provision in NDPS Act debarring release of cash amount during pendency of trial. A bare perusal of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. lays down a procedure for disposal of property during the pendency of trial and the same reads as under: -

“451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disp