Uttarakhand High Court
Hon'Ble Alok Mahra vs Unknown on 27 March, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C-528 No. 2215 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned D.A.G. for the State.
3. The present criminal misc. application is filed with the prayer to set-aside and quash the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 46 of 2025, Mohd. Javed Vs. State, in Case Crime No. 28 of 2025, under Sections 8/20/60 of NDPS Act. Further relief is prayed for directing the concerned court to release the seized vehicle bearing registration no.UK-07-TE-1963 in favour of the applicant.
4. It is the case of the applicant that FIR has not been lodged against him nor he has been chargesheeted, but, merely on the basis of allegation that his vehicle in question was used in commission of crime, his vehicle has been seized by the Police.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant moved an application seeking release of the seized vehicle before the learned Special Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi. The learned Session Judge, vide order dated 02.12.2025 had rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present application has been preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicle in question has been lying in the custody of the Police since 13.10.2025 and continued detention would result in its deterioration and depreciation in value. It is further the case of the applicant that applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and on 11.10.2025, he has given the vehicle to one Shahnawaj for some booking, but, on 13.10.2025, Shahnawaj alongwith three other persons, was arrested by the Police and the vehicle was also seized by the Police.
7. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein it was held that prolonged retention of seized vehicles at police stations serves no fruitful purpose. The Magistrate must pass immediate orders for interim release upon appropriate bond, guarantee, or security, to prevent loss or depreciation.
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that, upon completion of investigation, the vehicle was found to be involved in the commission of crime, and, accordingly, proceedings for confiscation have been initiated, and the vehicle remains in the custody of the concerned Police Station.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The ratio laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat squarely applies to the facts of the present case, particularly with regard to expeditious release of seized vehicles to prevent undue hardship and avoid deterioration, subject to appropriate safeguards.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 46 of 2025, Mohd. Javed Vs. State (Case Crime No. 28 of 2025) is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the said order is quashed.
11. Consequently, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands allowed.
12. The competent authority is directed to release the aforesaid vehicle in favour of the applicant/registered owner forthwith, subject to his furnishing adequate bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and upon his undertaking that: (i) he shall produce the vehicle as and when required during investigation or trial; (ii) he shall not transfer, alienate, or create any third-party interest in the vehicle without prior permission of the Court; and (iii) he shall maintain the vehicle in proper condition. It is made clear that such release shall not prejudice the trial.
(Alok Mahra J.) 27.03.2026 Ujjwal