IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA th ON THE 8 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 251 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

GHANSHYAM S/O BIRAM, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR DEORI CHANCHAL P.S.

GHATOLI DIST. JHALAWAR (RAJASTHAN)

.....PETITIONER (SHRI GOVIND PAL SINGH SONGARA, ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION KALIPEETH, DIST. RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (SHRI SUHAS PUNDALIK, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This revision coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the following:

ORDER

Heard.

This criminal revision u/S 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner/accused being aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, NDPS Act, Rajgarh, District Rajgarh (Biaora) in Crime No.123/2023 registered at Police Station Kalipeeth (I.A. No.451/3/2023), whereby learned Trial Court has rejected an application u/S 451 of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner for grant of interim custody of seized vehicle, mini truck Signature Not Verified bearing registration No. RJ-17-GA-7496.

2. As per prosecution story, on receiving secret information, on

19.04.2023 at 04:00 AM, the police stopped the aforementioned mini truck. Four persons including the driver were in the vehicle and 03 of them succeeded to flee away. One person named Bane Singh was caught by the police at the place of incident. During search of the vehicle, 80 kgs. of Poppy Straw was found. The police after compliance of other formalities had seized the aforementioned Poppy Straw and the vehicle from the possession of co- accused Bane Singh. Accordingly, a crime was registered. During investigation, it was found that present petitioner Ghanshyam and co-accused persons Bane Singh, Biram and Dev Singh were transporting the aforementioned contraband in the vehicle, without having any license or authority. At the time of incident, the petitioner was driving the vehicle. After completion of investigation, charge-

sheet has been filed.

3. The petitioner has preferred an application u/S 451 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for releasing the seized vehicle on interim custody. After hearing both the parties, learned Trial Court has rejected the application, by observing that the vehicle was being used to transport contraband. Petitioner is also an accused of the crime. The vehicle is liable to be confiscated.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the seized vehicle and the vehicle is used for daily purposes. The vehicle is placed in open area at police station, and its machinery will be affected if it remained there and its utility will be reduced. He is ready to abide by all the conditions that will be imposed by this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be granted interim custody of the vehicle till final Signature Not Verified disposal of the matter. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar V The State of Madhya Pradesh [CRR No.4450/2023 dated 09.10.2023].

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the prayer for release of the vehicle on interim custody and has supported the impugned order.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

7. From perusal of photocopy of registration certificate filed by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. No other documents i.e. insurance policy, driving licence etc. have been filed by the petitioner.

8. It is apposite to reproduce here the provision of Section 52 A of the NDPS Act, 1985, which runs as under:-

"52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.--2[(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constra