IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 1694 of 2023

(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)

Chandra Singh Sella .............Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ...........Respondent

Presence:

Mr. Prem Kaushal, learned counsels for the Applicant.

Mr. N.S. Kanyal, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J ( Oral)

By means of the present C-482 Application, the Applicant has put

to challenge the order dated 30.10.2021, passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Udham Singh Nagar in Vehicle Release Application No. 273 of 2021 (FIR No.190 of 2021), “State vs. Vipul and Others” under Sections 8/20/60 of NDPS Act, at Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby, the vehicle release application of the Applicant for seeking custody/possession of vehicle having Registration No.UK04 S 2114 has been

rejected by the learned Trial Court.

2. The facts of the case, as reflected in the FIR, are that on 12.06.2021, acting on information received from a mukhbir (informant), the police party intercepted two cars. From one of the cars, two accused persons were arrested, and 1.094 kg of charas was recovered from the trunk of the

said vehicle. Upon searching vehicle No. UK04 S 2114, contraband substances under the NDPS Act, 1985 were found. Consequently, an offence under Sections 8, 20, and 60 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was registered at Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, against the present Applicant, and the said vehicle was also seized. An application was filed by the owner of the vehicle (the present Applicant) for its release, which was rejected by the impugned order.

3. The application moved by the Applicant was contested by the respondent – State saying that the vehicle was being used for transporting contraband substance, and therefore the application for release of vehicle deserves to be rejected.

4. The learned Trial Court rejected the said application saying that there was no reason to release the vehicle in favour of the Applicant.

5. The Applicant made an undertaking that he would not transfer the vehicle, and as and when the Court direct, the aforesaid vehicle shall be produced before the Court. He requested vehicle to be released in his favour.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records including police report regarding the said vehicle, grounds are sufficient.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for the Applicant that the vehicle has been lying unattended at the police station compound and the same is exposed to sun and rain, thereby rendering it to natural wear and tear and open to deterioration. There is no use of keeping vehicle there in police station and the said vehicle be released in his favour in view of Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC.

8. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283.

9. Relying upon the aforesaid case, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that in view of Sections 451 CrPC and as the orders can be passed for release of the property pending conclusion of the trial, if the property is subject to speedy and natural degrade and if otherwise, it is expedient, so to do, the release application should have been allowed. This impugned order suffers from illegality and is liable to be quashed.

10. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the said Application, contending that the vehicle was used for transporting contraband substances and that a commercial quantity of charas was recovered; therefore, the application for release of the vehicle is liable to be rejected. However, the learned State Counsel admitted that the applicant is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle.

11. I have gone through the judgment and order relied upon by learned counsel for the Applicant rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court along with provisions of Sections 451 of the CrPC.

12. In the case of Su