IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MUDDAMAL) NO. 1046 of

2025 ==========================================================

GAURANG RANCHODBHAI JOSHI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 04/09/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The present revision application has been preferred by the present applicant original accused under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSS, 2023) directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Savarkundla, Dist. Amreli in Criminal Misc. Application No.171/2025 by order dated 13.06.2025 rejecting the muddamal application for releasing of muddamal Hero Motorcycle of Splendor Plus BLK STRIPE I3S bearing registration no.GJ-14-BF-4588 and mobile phone of Oppo Company A78 model seized by investigating agency. Pursuant to the offence before the Amreli Police Station vide CR No.11193003250427 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)B, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”).

3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that present applicant is the owner of the vehicle and to release the muddamal vehicle application has been given and further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution secret information has been received by the Police, intercepted muddamal vehicle from prohibited muddamal and therefore the FIR came to be registered. Further it is submitted that the present applicant is the owner of the mobile phone and the vehicle. Further it is submitted that as per the case of the prosecution there was not narcotic drugs has been found from the vehicle and as per the case of the prosecution that the narcotic drugs has been found from the residential premises but as per the case of the prosecution, this vehicle has been used by the present applicant to get this narcotic drugs from other accused person that is the only allegation. So far as the learned Trial Court has only rejected the application on the ground that as per the Section 60 of the NDPS Act and the said conveyance is required to be confiscated. Further it is submitted that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is required to be set aside and the pending trial, the vehicle and the mobile phone is required to be returned back to the criminal.

4. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Niraj Sharma has opposed present application and contended the impugned vehicle was used in the commission of the offence of NDPS and subsequently seized and submitted that impugned vehicle is not require to be released and same to be required confiscated. Further submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs State of Assam reported in 2025 INSC 32. It has been observed that the vehicle is seized in connection with the offence of the NDPS Act likely to be confiscated. In view of the bar under Section 60 is not required to be released and requested for dismiss the application.

5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

6. Going through the allegations, this Court is of the considered view that merely because the vehicle is used in the commission of the offence of NDPS Act, is not a ground to refuse the application for release of muddamal. At the time of deciding the application for release of muddamal seized under NDPS Act which does not bar the jurisdiction under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. or Section 60 of the NDPS Act. Exercising the power under Section 60 of the NDPS Act the Court must have to satisfy that the vehicle was used in transportation either it was found it consciou