Jharkhand High Court
Hewanti Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2619 of 2021
Hewanti Devi, aged about 28 years, wife of Shiv Kumar, resident of Village
Hesatu, P.O. Khadhaiya, P.S. Tandwa, District- Chatra ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.
-----
07/08.09.2022. Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.03.2021
passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra in
Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.436 of 2020 arising out of Chatra P.S.
Case No.107 of 2020, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner for
release of Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing registration No.JH13D-5181 has
been rejected, pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra.
3. The case was registered on the written report of the informant who
was posted as P.S.I. in Chatra Sadar P.S. alleging therein that on 24.04.2020
at about 11:30 a.m. while he was on patrolling duty on secret information,
the said vehicle was stopped in the route of Chatra-Gaya road and on
search, poppy seeds and its dust to the tune of 664 Kgs has been found
from the vehicle and on that ground, the said vehicle was seized.
4. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and she was not having any knowledge of
transportation of poppy seeds in the said vehicle. He further submits that no
purpose will be served if the vehicle in question is allowed to be destroyed
in open.
5. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for
release of the vehicle and submits that the petitioner was having knowledge
of transportation of the incriminating article. He further submits that the
husband of the petitioner was using the vehicle and he was arrested from
the spot. He also 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. It is of no use to keep the seized 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 v. 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."
7. In view of the above facts, the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra in Miscellaneous
Criminal Application No.436 of 2020 arising out of Chatra P.S. Case No.107
of 2020, pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge (NDPS), Chatra is, hereby, quashed.
8. 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 her 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.
(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. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
