Jharkhand High Court
Nand Kumar Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1638 of 2020
Nand Kumar Sahu, aged about 38 years, son of Rameshwar, resident of
298 Sundar Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, P.O. Machonda, P.S. Ambala, District-
Ambala, (Haryana) ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Gaurav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.
-----
09/07.12.2021. Heard Mr. J.S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl. P.P. for the opposite party-State.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the order dated
20.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Khunti whereby
the prayer for the petitioner for release of Alto Car baring Registration No.
HR-01AF-1195 and cash amount of Rs. 60,300/- has been rejected in
connection with Arki P.S. Case No. 12/2019 corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case
No. 26/2019, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Khunti.
3. The case was registered on the basis of self statement of informant
S.I. Bikrant Kumar alleging there in that on 07.04.2019 one Silver Alto Car
vide Registration No. HR-01AF-1195 loaded with 250 gm of brown sugar
was seized. On query no valid document was produced with regard to
seized material. It is further alleged that in course of search Rs. 60,300/-
and A.T.M. card was also recovered from the purse of the persons sitting on
the said vehicle.
4. Mr. J.S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is innocent and he was not having any knowledge of
transportation of 250 gm of brown sugar in the said vehicle. He also
submits that no purpose will be served if the vehicle in question is allowed
to be destroyed in open. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus
State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. He further relied upon
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
dated 11.12.2020 in the case of Tikeshwar Singh v. State of
Chhattisgarh in Criminal Misc. Petition No.1374 of 2020 and submits that
in that case, the vehicle was directed to be released.
5. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-
State opposes the prayer for release of the vehicle and the amount in
question and submits that that the petitioner was having knowledge of
transportation of the incriminating material. He further submits that Section
60(3) of the NDPS Act stipulates that the vehicle can be released only when
the concerned person is able to prove that it was used without the
knowledge or connivance of the owner.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the owner of the said
vehicle. In the case of Tikeshwar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur has considered Sections 36-C and Section 60 of the
NDPS Act as well as Sections 451 or 457(1) of the Cr.P.C. in paragraphs 3
and 6 of that judgment. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sunderlal Ambalal Desai (supra) has also been
considered. Paragraph 17 of the judgment passed in the case of Tikeshwar
Singh (supra) is quoted herein below:
"17. In view of the above, the finding of the learned Special
Judge that since the vehicle is liable to be confiscated, interim
custody under Section 451/457 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be
granted, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the
impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS),
Korba is hereby set aside. Since it is the case of the petitioner
that he is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and
it was being used in the commission of offence and he is said
to have given the said vehicle to the accused for his lawful
purpose, but the accused has used it for the commission of
alleged offence, the petitioner is entitled for interim custody of
the vehicle. The matter is remitted to the Special Judge
(NDPS) to pass order on the interim custody of the vehicle to
the petitioner within 10 days from the date of production of
certified copy of this order as per the decisions of the
Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and in
the matter of Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar and others.
The Special Judge may impose certain reasonable conditions
for the ultimate production of the vehicle in question during
trial."
7. It is of no use to keep such vehicle at the police station for a long
period. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State
of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. Paragraphs 5 and 17 of the
said judgment are quoted herein below:-
"5. Section 451 clearly empowers the court to pass
appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as:
(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or
trial;
(2) to order it to be said or otherwise disposed of, after
recording such
(3) If the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, the
dispose of the same.
xxx xxx xxx
"17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to
keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long
period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders
immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well
as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any
point of time. This can be done pending hearing of
applications for return of such vehicles."
8. In view of the above facts and so far as Section 60(3) of the NDPS
Act is concerned, that will come into play once the trial is concluded, the
Court is inclined to release the vehicle of the petitioner. The vehicle, in
question shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking on
the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond to the satisfaction
of the court below.
(ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a commercial
vehicle of District Khunti.
(iii) That the petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the
ownership of the vehicle on hire purchase agreement or mortgage or
in any manner.
(iv) She shall not change or tamper with the identification of the
vehicle in any manner.
(v) She shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial
Court.
9. The trial court is at liberty to impose any other terms and conditions
which the trial Court deems fit and proper. The trial court will not insist for
bank guarantee and cash guarantee.
10. So far as prayer for release of Rs. 60,300/- is concerned, the Court is
not inclined to pass any order for release of the said amount and
accordingly that prayer is rejected.
11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands partly
allowed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
