Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No. 4210 of 2022

Kshirod Ch. Mahanta @ Kshirod

Chandra Mahanta

&.

Petitioner

Mr. Ashutosh Mohanta, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha

&.

Opposite Party

Mr. Tapas Kumar Praharaj, SC

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER

05.01.2023

02.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2.

Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the

petitioner challenging the correctness and judicial propriety of the

impugned order dated 30^th March, 2022 passed by the learned 1^st

Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada in C.M.C. No.01 of 2021

(Annexure-2) arising out of 2(a) C.C. Case No.01 of 2021 pending in

the court of learned District and Sessions-cum-Special Judge,

Baripada, Mayurbhanj whereby an application filed under Section

457 by him for release of the seized vehicle bearing registration

No.OD09N8571 was rejected.

3.

Perused the impugned order at Annexure-2.

Page 2 of 3

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an

application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was moved before the

learned court below for release of the vehicle in question but the

same was declined on the ground that the petitioner to be the

accused by referring to a decision of this Court in the case of

Jitendra Kumar Digal Vrs. State of Odisha in Crl. Revision No.281 of

2020 decided on 22^nd October, 2020. It is submitted that learned

court below cited another judgment of this Court in the case of

Ashis Ranjan Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha and Others reported in

(2019) 1 OLR 275 and while referring to paragraph-12 of the said

decision, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

judgment in Ashis Ranjan Mohanty(supra) is to prevail since because

this Court in that case has taken note of the decisions in Ghasana

Mohapatra Vrs. State of Odisha (2019) 1 OLR 275 and

Ramaksurhna Mahasura Vrs.State of Odisha (2011) 81 OCR 635.

5.

Mr. T.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel for the State

submits that the vehicle involved in transportation of contraband

substance was seized by the police in connection with 2(a) CCC

Case No.01 of 2021 and the petitioner is the owner of the said

vehicle and hence, it cannot be said that the court below did

commit any error in denying its release in his favour.

6.

This Court in Lipu @ Pravat Kumar Swain Vrs. State of

Odisha in CRLMC No.2924 of 2020 by order dated 23^rd

November, 2022 directed release of the vehicle involved in

transportation of contraband substance under the provisions of

Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. In fact, in Ramakrushna Panda (supra),

this Court held that Section 60 of the NDPS Act provides for

confiscation of the conveyance and other articles and as such

provisions of Cr.P.C. are not inconsistent with any of the provisions

including Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act nor its application

has been excluded by any of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

Page 3 of 3

7.

Considering the judgment in the case of Ashis Ranjan

Mohanty (supra) and in absence of any statutory bar in NDPS Act

against interim release of seized vehicle, the Court is of the view

that learned court below ought to have allowed release of the

alleged vehicle in favour of the petitioner subject to conditions

notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is an accused since there

is no restriction in the NDPS Act as such. The Court is of the

conclusion that keeping in view the law laid down in Ashis Ranjan

Mohanty (supra), the release of the vehicle of the petitioner bearing

registration No.OD09N8571 should be allowed.

8.

Accordingly it is ordered.

9.

Consequently, the CRLMC stands allowed. As a necessary

corollary, the impugned order dated 30^th March, 2022 under

Annexure-2 passed in CMC No.01 of 2022 is h