The court can release a seized vehicle under strict conditions to balance ownership rights and ongoing criminal proceedings while safeguarding against future violations.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) Admit the instant petition.

(ii) Call for the Lower Court record of Special (NDPS) case No. 03 of 2020, under Sections-20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 from the Court of Ld. Special Judge, Khowai, Tripura.

(iii) Call for the case diary of Khowai P.S. Case No. 2020KHW021 dated 29.01.2020 registered under Sections-20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

(iv) Notify the Public Prosecutor.

(v) After hearing both sides are pleased to pass an order releasing the aforesaid vehicle on any condition as Your Lordships deems fit and proper.'

1. Heard Mr. D. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Datta, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle bearing registration No.WB06-H-1696 has been seized in connection with Khowai P.S. Case No. 2020KHW/021 dated 29.01.2020, registered under Sections-20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985, on the allegation that the said vehicle is involved in transporting so much quantity of contraband substances. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he is no way involved with the same and also has no knowledge about the said crime and prayed to release the vehicle.

3. Mr. R. Datta, learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions has submitted that the said vehicle is involved in the crime and the same cannot be released since, it is to be confiscated under Section-61(iii)/63 of NDPS Act. He has further contended that if the vehicle is released, the same would be involved in the above crime repeatedly and as such, he prayed for dismiss the petition.

4. Admittedly, the vehicle is involved in the said crime and the matter is yet to be decided by the concerned Court. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Court, as an interim custody, this Court feels that the vehicle can be released as no purpose would be served if the same is detained with the police. In the Court proceeding, if the owner and the vehicle are not found guilty in involving in the said crime, the condition of the vehicle by then would become a scrap and no purpose would be served.

5. In view of the same, this Court directs the respondents to release the vehicle in favour of the owner subject to the conditions as follows:

(I) The owner of the vehicle shall furnish a bank guarantee to the full value of the vehicle as assessed by the concerned Motor Vehicle Inspector.

(II) The said bank guarantee shall be kept alive by renewing it periodically, till the criminal case is decided.

(III) In the event, if the case is decided in favour of the owner, the bank guarantee shall be released in favour of the owner and if the criminal proceedings end against the owner of the vehicle, the bank guarantee so furnished, shall be confiscated and the State is entitled for encashing the same.

(IV) The owner of the vehicle shall not alienate/change the nature of the vehicle and shall give an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when it is required by the Investigating Officer for inspection/investigation.

(V) The owner of the vehicle shall deposit the original vehicle papers with the I.O. under proper authorization and acknowledgement.

(VI) The owner shall give an undertaking that he shall make sure that the said vehicle shall not involve in future in any of the offences under the NDPS Act and in the event, if it is found involved and seized by the police, the owner undertakes that he shall not take any steps for getting the vehicle released on any conditions.

6. On complying with the above conditions, the concerned officer-in-charge shall release the vehicle in favour of the owner under prope