The NDPS Act permits vehicle owners to apply for bail after seizure beyond the 30-day period, clarifying that no mandatory confiscation occurs until after one month.

JUDGMENT

1. Question arises for consideration in this criminal petition is whether Section 63 of the NDPS Act mandates the owner of a seized vehicle to file an application for releasing the vehicle on bail within one month from the date of its seizure, and such owner cannot file any application or claim for releasing his seized vehicle after expiry of one month.

2. A brief narration of facts may be outlined herein below:-

The police have detained and seized one TATA Ultra 1518 Truck, bearing No.MH-04-JK-8349 and recovered huge quantity of contraband articles. Driver of the vehicle was arrested. A case was registered as TLM PS Case No. 2021 TLM 059, under Section 20 (b)(ii)(c)/25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The owner of the vehicle filed an application on 23rd March 2022 before the learned Special Judge, Khowai District for releasing the vehicle on bail, but, after expiry of one month. While disposing of the said bail application, learned Special Judge relied upon a judgment passed by this court in Crl. Petn. No.8 of 2018 [Kishan Singh v. The State of Tripura, disposed of on 16.03.2018], wherein it was observed thus:

'... If the owner of the vehicle is not an accused in that case, a separate and independent proceeding has to be drawn for confiscation in terms of the express provisions in Section 60 (3) of the NDPS Act to protect an innocent owner before confiscating his vehicle or conveyance. Thus, there is a right to the owner who claimed within 30 [thirty] days from the day of seizure, his title over the vehicle to have interim custody of the said vehicle subject to the adequate security till completion of the trial...'

3. Having quoted the aforesaid observation, the learned Special Judge has recorded a finding in the order dated 01.06.2022, passed in Special (NDPS) 01 of 2022 as follows:-

'In the instant case the petitioner did not pray for the vehicle within 30 days from the date of seizure.

Hence, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in Kishan Singh v. State of Tripura, the petitioner is not entitled to get interim custody i.e. bail of the said vehicle at this stage. Hence, the petition praying for releasing the vehicle is rejected.'

4. Feeling aggrieved, and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned order, the owner of the vehicle has approached this court and urged to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its inherent power vested under Section 482 of CrPC.

5. I have heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. Datta, learned Public Prosecutor along with Mr. S. Debnath and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for the State-respondent.

6. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that Section 63 of the NDPS Act does not contemplate that an owner has to file an application for releasing his vehicle within a period of 30 days from the date of seizure.

7. On the other hand, learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Tripura has defended the impugned order passed by learned Special Judge and candidly submits that the views taken by learned Special Judge was based on the principle laid down by this court in the case of Kishan Singh (supra). The above submissions of the learned counsels lead this court to peruse Section 63 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under:-

63. Procedure in making confiscations.---

(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62 and, if it decides t