Jharkhand High Court
Mantu Kumar Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 803 of 2022
Mantu Kumar Sahu, son of Lutan Sahu, resident of village Bandu, P.O. and
P.S. Lawalong, District-Chatra ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
...... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
04/Dated: 13/09/2022
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sihgh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State.
2. Petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing of order dated
02.07.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS),
Chatra in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 697 of 2021 arising out of
Lawalong P.S. Case No. 35 of 2020, corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No. 33 of
2020, whereby petition for release of motorcycle bearing Registration No.
JH01DE 6714, has been rejected, pending in the Court of learned Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS, Chatra.
3. The case has been registered on the basis of self statement of
informant alleging therein that 800 gram of opium has been recovered from
the motorcycle in question thereafter the motorcycle has been seized.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that quantity of the
seized opium is not very high. He further submits that the learned court
rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for release of said vehicle on the
ground of rampant trade and also on the ground that investigation is still going
on.
5. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State opposes the
prayer for release of the vehicle and submits that the petitioner is owner of the
vehicle and the father of the petitioner was driving the vehicle. He further
submits that the learned court has rightly rejected the petition filed by the
petitioner for release of said vehicle on the ground of rampant trade and also
on the ground that the investigation is still going on.
6. It is admitted that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle
and 800 gram of opium has been seized from the vehicle in question. 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 Vs. 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 aforesaid fact and considering that the petitioner is
the owner of the said vehicle 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. Accordingly, the order dated
02.07.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS),
Chatra in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 697 of 2021 arising out of
Lawalong P.S. Case No. 35 of 2020, corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No. 33 of
2020, whereby petition for release of motorcycle has been rejected, pending
in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS, Chatra, is
hereby set aside. The vehicle, in question, bearing Registration No. JH01DE
6714 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 learned court.
ii. One of the surety must be resident and owner of a commercial
vehicle of District-Chatra (Jharkhand).
iii. That the petitioner shall not sell, 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.
v. He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial
Court.
8. The Trial Court is at liberty to impose any other terms and
conditions which the trial court deems fit and proper.
9. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and
disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
