HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Criminal No. 1446 of 2023

3^rd September, 2025

Atul Gupta --Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand --Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Suhail Siddiqui and Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocates for the

Petitioner.

Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned orders dated 17.08.2023 and 22.09.2023 passed by learned Divisional Forest Officer, Ramnagar Nainital and Conservator of Forest, Western Circle, Uttarakhand Haldwani respectively in Appeal No. 10/2023-24, titled as “Shri Atul Gupta vs. State and Others” and further to direct the Respondents to forthwith release the vehicle of the Petitioner being

Registration No. U.K. 06-BA- 0606.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.01.2023, on the basis of information of an informer

that a gang is trying to sell Ivory at Ramnagar, the complainant reached at Ramnagar from Dehradun along with his police team, and from Ramnagar the complainant reached at the place of incident along with local police and local forest team. On the pointing out of informer, the police team and other caught the three persons from the back seat of a car CRETA No. UK 06-

BA-0606 along with an Ivory.

3. Thereafter, the forest authorities confiscated the vehicle of the Petitioner. The Petitioner requested Respondent No. 3 to release the vehicle because the condition of vehicle was deteriorating, respondent No. 3 rejected the request of the Petitioner vide its order dated

17.08.2023.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2023 passed by Respondent No. 3, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 also dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner vide its order dated

22.09.2023.

5. Being aggrieved by the above orders, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle having registration no. U.K. 06-BA 0606.

7. A bare reading of the FIR clearly reveals that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle, which was intercepted and seized in connection with the aforesaid crime and is now in custody of police.

8. The petitioner filed an application for release of the said vehicle, but learned court below vide orders dated 17.08.2023 and 22.09.2023 dismissed the case of the petitioner.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. It is contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the vehicle has been lying unattended at the police station compound and the same is exposed to the vagaries of the weather and miscreants, till the conclusion of trial, it will result into vehicle get damaged and reduce its value substantially which will not benefit the state or the owner. There is no use of keeping vehicle there in police station and the said vehicle be released in her favour.

11. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Bishwajit Dey vs. The State of Assam” (Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2025) delivered on 07.01.2025.

12. Per contra, learned State counsel poses his formal objection in this regard.

13. I have gone through the judgment and order relied upon by learned counsel for the Petitioner rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court along with provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC.

14. For ready reference, para nos.22 and 23 of ‘Bishwajit Dey’ (supra) are quoted hereinbelow:-

“22. This Court is further of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.

23. In the absence of