RANCHI, India, Nov. 8 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 8:
1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred for setting-aside the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the learned A.J.C.-VIII-cum-Spl. Judge, NDPS, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.2974/2024 (arising out of NDPS Case No.56/2022, Tamar P.S. Case No.53/2022), whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for release of the pick-up van under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita was rejected, pending in the Court of the learned A.J.C.-VIII-cum-Spl. Judge, NDPS, Ranchi.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence. He further submits that the petitioner has been arrested in the case by the police and subsequently, he has been released on regular bail by the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No.3960 of 2023, dated 06.06.2023. He then submits that the petitioner is having Diploma degree in Mechanical Engineering from Satya Sai University of Technology & Medical Sciences, Sehore (Madhya Pradesh). He next submits that the petitioner has purchased Mahindra Bolero Pick-up Van from Mahindra Finance with EMI of Rs.20,600/- per month. He also submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle No. JH-01EQ-2669 registered with the District Transport Office, Ranchi. He further submits that the petitioner is the owner and he was travelling in the said pick-up van and in view of that, he has been made an accused. He next submits that the said vehicle is seized on the allegation under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the same is kept in open space and is deteriorating day-by-day. To buttress this argument, he refers photographs of the vehicle annexed with this criminal revision petition, contained in Annexure-5. He also submits that even the battery of the said vehicle has been removed. According to him, the petitioner is still paying EMIs and he is facing difficulty in paying EMI, whereas, the vehicle in question is seized. He submits that Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act will come into play once the trial will be over and then only the vehicle can be confiscated. He further submits that with certain conditions, the vehicle, even if involved in the NDPS crime, can be released. He further submits that the learned Court has been pleased to reject the prayer to release the vehicle considering rigor of NDPS Act. On these grounds, he submits that the vehicle may kindly be released.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and he was apprehended on the spot and in view of that, the vehicle may not be released. He further submits that the vehicle in question is the material evidence and in view of that, the vehicle is required to be kept.
5. On query made by the Court to the learned counsel appearing for the State with regard to deterioration of the vehicle, he submits that it appears that the vehicle is lying in open space.
6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is an admitted position that the vehicle in question has been seized with contraband. The petitioner was found to be seated in the said vehicle. The question of confiscation in light of Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act will come into play once the trial is over. Looking into the photographs annexed with the present petition, it transpires that the vehicle in question is parked in open space and it is deteriorating day-by-day.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x8OwVKtI35gLDTjHb6cDOHkFko5q9Ndnkz8ffdpGG4Le&caseno=Cr.Rev./535/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010176322025&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
