HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 917 of 2023

28^th February, 2025 Ayodhya Prasad …...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 21.01.2023, passed by learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), whereby Misc. Application No.66 of 2023, “State of Uttarakhand Vs. Ayodhya Prasad” under Sections 8/22/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar to release the Vehicle No. UK06-AR-1292 in favour of the applicant, claiming himself 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 8/22/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, was registered with Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (FIR NO.455 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 he was registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle (a Motorcycle) No. UK06-AR-1292; on 14.07.2022 his acquaintance – Sandeep had taken his motorcycle for some urgent work; the Police arrested Sandeep and sent him to prison and the motorcycle was seized and was kept in Police Station Rudrapur. 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. He requested vehicle to be released in his 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 accused – Sandeep and Kallu for carrying contraband substance; during investigation applicant/registered owner was also arrested and a charge sheet was submitted against him under Section 29 r/w 8/22 of the NDPS Act being Charge Sheet No. 11 of 2023 and since he is accused under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 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