Advocates:
['Mr S S DATTA', '', 'Mr P K GHOSH', 'PP']

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

CRL PETN 33 OF 2022

Praveen Kumar Singh, son of Jang Bahadur Singh,

Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh,

(Owner of the vehicle No.UP67AT-5814 (Truck)

…. Petitioner

Vrs.

The State of Tripura

…Respondent.

Present:

For the petitioner (s)

:

Mr. P.K. Ghosh, 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

: No

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

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

month.

Page 2 of 8

2.

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

The police have detained and seized one Truck vehicle bearing

registration No.UP67AT-5814 and recovered huge quantity of contraband

articles. Driver of the vehicle was arrested. A case was registered as

Mungiakami PS Case No. 01 of 2022 under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of

the NDPS Act. The owner of the vehicle filed an application on 21^st June

2022 before the learned Special Judge, Khowai District for releasing the

vehicle on bail, but, after expiry of one month. While disposing 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…=

3.

Having quoted the aforesaid observation, the learned Special

Judge has recorded a finding in the order dated 21.06.2022, passed in

Special (NDPS) 19 of 2022 as follows:-

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

vehicle within 30 days from the date of seizure.

Page 3 of 8

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. P.K.Ghosh, 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. Ghosh, 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.

7.

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

State of Tripura has defended the impugned order passed by learned

Special Judge and candidly submits that the views taken by learned Special

Page 4 of 8

Judge was based on the principle laid down by this court in the case of

Kishan Singh (supra).

The above submissions of the lear