[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Mukeshbhai Lakshmanji Chaudhary vs State Of Gujarat on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2163/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 2163 of 2026
==========================================================
MUKESHBHAI LAKSHMANJI CHAUDHARY
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY(5316) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR H K PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 01/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
RULE. Learned APP waives notice of rule for and on behalf
of the respondents.
1. The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India so also inherent powers of this Court under Section 497 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
"BNSS") with a prayer to release Muddamal Vehicle i.e Hyundai
Creta Car bearing RTO registration No.GJ-08-DJ-1976, which
was seized in connection with the FIR No.11195001250300 of
2025, registered with Aagthala Police Station, District
Banaskantha for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C),
15(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act (for short "NDPS Act").
2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has urged that this
Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2163/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
3. Learned APP has opposed the present petition on the
ground that the impugned vehicle was used in commission of the
offence of NDPS Act and subsequently was seized. Therefore, the
impugned vehicle is not required to be released and the same is
required to be confiscated. Even the trial Court has relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bishwajit Dey Vs
State of Assam reported in 2025 INSC 32, and come to the
conclusion that the vehicle is seized in connection with the
offence of NDPS Act and liable to be confiscated in view of bar
under Section 60 and is not required to be released. Hence,
requested to dismiss the petition.
4. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
5. Going through the allegations, this Court is of the
considered view that merely because the vehicle is used in the
commission of the offence of NDPS Act, is not a ground to refuse
the application for release of muddamal. At the time of deciding
the application for release of muddamal seized under NDPS Act
which does not bar the jurisdiction under Section 451 of the
Cr.P.C or Section 60 of the NDPS Act. Exercising the power
under Section 60 of the NDPS Act the Court must have to satisfy
that the vehicle was used in the transportation of alleged
contraband and the vehicle was used in transportation either it
was found in conscious possession. As per the case of
prosecution the car was used for transportation of contraband
by the co-accused based on the statement of co-accused but
there is no evidence or material which suggest that from the said
vehicle the contraband was seized.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2163/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
6. Considering the above facts and keeping in mind the law
laid down in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs State of Assam
reported in 2025 INSC 32, as such no purpose would serve to
keep the vehicle for identification in police station, it is expedient
to avoid situation of vehicle getting deteriorated pending the trial
and hence, keeping in mind the aforesaid peculiar fact and
keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat
reported in (2002)10 SCC 283, with certain stringent
conditions, present petition deserves consideration in exercise of
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Resultantly, this petition is ALLOWED. The order dated
24.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Palanpur in Criminal Misc. Application No.1102 of 2025 is
hereby quashed an set aside.
8. The learned Trial Court / authority concerned is directed
to release the vehicle of the petitioner being Hyundai Creta Car
bearing RTO registration No.GJ-08-DJ-1976, which was seized
in connection with the FIR No.11195001250300 of 2025,
registered with Aagthala Police Station, District Banaskantha on
the terms and conditions that the petitioner:
(i) shall furnish a solvent surety of the amount
equivalent to the price of the vehicle in question stated in
the FIR / panchnama.
(ii) shall file undertaking before the learned Trial Court
that he shall not transfer / change the identity, color etc.
of the vehicle till final disposal of the trial.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2163/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
(iii) shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the
learned Trial Court.
(iv) in the event of any subsequent offence, the vehicle
shall stand confiscated;
(v) present order does not preclude the learned
Magistrate / Authority from passing any order to initiate
confiscation proceeding or auction order of vehicle;
9. Before release of the vehicle, concerned police authority
shall take photographs / identity of the vehicle from all sides at
the cost of the petitioner and shall draw necessary panchanama
to that effect. Said panchanama and photographs shall be part
of charge sheet papers for the purpose of trial.
10. A copy of this order be sent to concerned RTO, where the
vehicle is registered, for necessary entry in the Register and to
take notice that this Court has restrained transfer of vehicle till
final disposal of the trial. Such transfer shall be subject to any
order that may be passed by the learned Trial Court permitting
transfer of vehicle.
11. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is
permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
AHS
