HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

CRL PETN 32 OF 2022

Shri Bal Krishna Mishra, son of

Sri Krishna Deo Mishra, aged about 41 years, resident of

Sai Krisita Apartment, Room No.102, First Floor, near

Hanuman Temple, Kisheli, PO-Kalher, Bhiwandi, Thane,

Maharastra, Presently residing at Flat No.108,

First Floor, Bld.-B 2 Wing Deeplaxmi Rajaram Residency,

Kalher, Bhiwandi, Thane, Maharastra.

…. Petitioner

Vrs.

The State of Tripura

…Respondent.

Present:

For the petitioner (s)

:

Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate.

For the respondent (s)

: Mr. R. Datta, P.P.

Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.

Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. P.P.

Date of hearing and

delivery of judgment

& order

:

14.07.2022

Whether fit for

reporting

: Yes

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

Judgment and Order(Oral)

Question arises for consideration in this criminal petition is

whether Section 63 of the NDPS Act mandates the owner of a seized

vehicle to file an application for releasing the vehicle on bail within one

month from the date of its seizure, and such owner cannot file any

Page 2 of 8

application or claim for releasing his seized vehicle after expiry of one

month.

2.

A brief narration of facts may be outlined herein below:-

The police have detained and seized one TATA Ultra 1518

Truck, bearing No.MH-04-JK-8349 and recovered huge quantity of

contraband articles. Driver of the vehicle was arrested. A case was

registered as TLM PS Case No. 2021 TLM 059, under Section

20(b)(ii)(c)/25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The owner of the vehicle filed an

application on 23^rd March 2022 before the learned Special Judge, Khowai

District for releasing the vehicle on bail, but, after expiry of one month.

While disposing of the said bail application, learned Special Judge relied

upon a judgment passed by this court in Crl. Petn. No.8 of 2018 [Kishan

Singh Vrs. The State of Tripura, disposed of on 16.03.2018], wherein it

was observed thus:

<… If the owner of the vehicle is not an accused in that

case, a separate and independent proceeding has to be drawn for

confiscation in terms of the express provisions in Section 60(3) of

the NDPS Act to protect an innocent owner before confiscating his

vehicle or conveyance. Thus, there is a right to the owner who

claimed within 30 [thirty] days from the day of seizure, his title

over the vehicle to have interim custody of the said vehicle subject

to the adequate security till completion of the trial…=

Page 3 of 8

3.

Having quoted the aforesaid observation, the learned Special

Judge has recorded a finding in the order dated 01.06.2022, passed in

Special (NDPS) 01 of 2022 as follows:-

<In the instant case the petitioner did not pray for the

vehicle within 30 days from the date of seizure.

Hence, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Tripura in Kishan Singh Vrs. State of Tripura, the

petitioner is not entitled to get interim custody i.e. bail of the said

vehicle at this stage. Hence, the petition praying for releasing the

vehicle is rejected.=

4.

Feeling aggrieved, and dissatisfied with the aforesaid

impugned order, the owner of the vehicle has approached this court and

urged to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its inherent power

vested under Section 482 of CrPC.

5.

I have heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr. R. Datta, learned Public Prosecutor along with Mr. S.

Debnath and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutors

appearing for the State-respondent.

6.

Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner has submitted that Section 63 of the NDPS Act does not

contemplate that an owner has to file an application for releasing his

vehicle within a period of 30 days from the date of seizure.

Page 4 of 8

7.

On the other hand, learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the

State of Tripura has defended the impugned order passed by