HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 643 of 2023

28^th February, 2025 Reshma Bee …...Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State.

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

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the order dated 22.11.2022, passed by learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), whereby, Misc. Application No.359 of 2022, “State of Uttarakhand Vs. Touseem” under Sections 8/21/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, to release the Vehicle No. UK06-BC-2836 in favour of the applicant, claiming herself to be registered owner of the said vehicle, has been rejected.

2. Facts of the case as reflected from the FIR are that the aforesaid vehicle was intercepted by the Police and on search contraband substance under NDPS Act, 1985 was recovered from the persons riding on vehicle and accordingly offence under the provisions of Sections 8/21/29/60 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, was registered with Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar (FIR NO.392 of 2022) against the applicant and the aforesaid vehicle was also seized. An application was moved on behalf of the owner of the vehicle (applicant herein) for its release, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

3. It was contended by the applicant that she was registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle (a Motorcycle) No. UK06-BC-2836; on 22.09.2022 her son had taken the vehicle; the Police arrested Tahseem and sent him to prison and the motorcycle was seized and was kept in Police Station Sitarganj. The applicant further submitted that the Motorcycle was standing under the sky and the same would diminish its value.

4. 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. She requested vehicle to be released in her favour.

5. The application moved by the applicant was contested by the respondent – State saying that the vehicle was liable for confiscation under Section 60 of NDPS Act, and therefore the application for release of vehicle deserves to be rejected.

6. The learned Special Sessions Judge, NDPS rejected the said application saying that the vehicle was used by son of the applicant for carrying contraband substance; accordingly a charge sheet was submitted against him under Section 8/21/29/60 of the NDPS Act being Charge Sheet and since applicant’s son is an accused under the aforesaid sections, there was no reason to release the vehicle.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. He further relied upon the judgment of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.368 of 2019, Abhijeet Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand decided on 10.04.2019 and judgment of this Court rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No.688 of 2024, Sangram Singh @ Santosh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others decided on 07.01.2025.

11. Relying upon these cases, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of Sections 451 and 457 CrPC and as the orders can be passed for release of the property pending conclusion of the trial, if th