Kumar Vikash Ranjan @ Vicky Aged ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3176 Jhar

                                       1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

Cr.M.P. No. 782 of 2021

----

Kumar Vikash Ranjan @ Vicky aged about 27 years son of Rajesh Prasad Gupta, resident of Village Narcha Khurd, PO Daihar, PS Itkhoti District Chatra ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

      The State of Jharkhand                     ...... Opposite Party
                                      ----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Binod Kumra Dubey, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P

----

6/16.08.2022 This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated

18.02.2021 passed in Itkhori P.S. Case No.168/2020, N.D.P.S. Case

No.13/2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge,

N.D.P.S., at Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No.13/2021 whereby the

prayer for release of the vehicle [Baleno Car] of the petitioner has been

rejected and the case is pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge

cum Special Judge, N.D.P.S, Chatra.

The F.I.R was instituted alleging therein that on the written

petition filed by Gobind Kumar, PSI, Itkhori, P.S. addressed to the Office

Incharge of Itkhori P.S. inter alia stating that on 3.10.2020 at about

14.05 hours S.P.Chatra got secret information that in one Baleno Maruti

Car Opium smugglers from the More side are going to Pitiz Itkhori side

after some time. In this regard, SP instructed to constitute a Raiding

Team with Magistrate for necessary action. This information was recorded

in Police diary as Sanha No.15 dated 3.10.2020 and for verification of the

matter and for needful action, the Officer Incharge of Itkhori Police

Station was requested to inform Sri Baijnath Kamati Circle Officer to

reach Itkhori Police Station. The Officer Incharge Itkhori Police Station

constituted a Raiding Team whose details is mentioned in the FIR and the

Team proceeded from the Police Station at 14.15 hours and reached Pitiz

Banga Chowk at about 14.30 hours and started to check the vehicles.

At about 15.00 hours from Chatra side one Mettalic Colour Maruti

Company's (Baleno Car bearing registration No.JH02 AX 8913) came in

high speed which was intercepted with great difficulty. Then the vehicle

was searched in presence of two independent witnesses whose names is

mentioned in the FIR. In the car two persons were sitting in the front

seat and person who was sitting in Driver's seat on enquiry disclosed his

name as Kumar Vikash Ranjan @ Vicky son of Rajesh Prasad Gupta detail

description is mentioned in the FIR and the other persons who was

sitting in the car disclosed his name as Dhiraj Kumar Sao. While

searching the vehicle from the Dash Board where the Asstt. Driver was

sitting in one white colour transparent plastic wet opium like material was

found which 700 grams weighed. Then they were demanded documents

for keeping opium but neither they produced any document nor gave any

satisfactory reply for keeping the material. Then in presence of

Magistrate and two independent witnesses, seizure list was prepared and

the opium was seized and sealed at the spot. The independent witnesses

put their signatures willingly on the seizure list and copy of the same was

handed over to the apprehended persons and their signatures obtained.

In this way selling and purchasing of banned opium and transporting the

same and apprehended red handed is a cognizable offence. Opium is

injurious to human beings health and both the persons were arrested.

That on the basis of the written petition filed by the informant, the FIR is

instituted.

Mr. Dubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the alleged 700 grams of Opium has been alleged

to be seized which is less than commercial quantity and two persons

have been arrested and they have been granted bail. He submits that the

petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle and the documents with

regard to the said vehicle are up-to-date. He submits that the petitioner

is the victim of the circumstance and the said vehicle was also insured

and the said vehicle was being driven by the petitioner. He submits that

no purpose will be served in keeping the said vehicle in open and the

vehicle in question will be destroyed as such.

Per contra, Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondent State submits that the vehicle in question

has been rightly seized as 700 grams of Opium has been recovered and

the petitioner being the owner of the said vehicle was arrested. He

further submits that confiscation of the vehicle in question is subject to

section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

In view of the above submission of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner it appears that the vehicle in question is lying

in open. This aspect of release of the vehicle has considered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v.

State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283. Paragraph no.17 of the said

judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

"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."

On perusal of sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act, it

transpires that, the intention of the Legislature not to confine its drive to

curb the spreading of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances to

take actions against the carriers but to strike at the big fish involved in

spreading and sustaining the malady by taking actions against persons

providing facilities for transportation and stocking of contraband

substances as also confiscating such transport and facilities involved in

smuggling of the same.

Section 63 of the said Act makes it abundantly clear that

decision regarding confiscation had not be taken during the trial and not

after it and the right of the State to confiscate the conveyance and

articles or things seized under this Act is irrespective of the result of the

trial.

In view of the above facts, the impugned order dated

18.02.2021 passed in Itkhori P.S. Case No.168/2020, N.D.P.S. Case

No.13/2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,

N.D.P.S., at Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No.13/2021 whereby the

prayer for release of the said vehicle [Baleno Car] of the petitioner has

been rejected, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge, N.D.P.S, Chatra is quashed. 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- Chatra (Jharkhand).

(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) He shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner, and

(v) He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial Court.

The trial court is at liberty to impose any other terms and

conditions which the trial court deems fit and proper.

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition [Cr.M.P.No.782

of 2021] stands allowed and disposed of.

I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/,