Jharkhand High Court
Jasdeo Swami vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 10 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 Cr.M.P. No.4131 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 4131 of 2022
Jasdeo Swami, aged about 63 years, Son of Late Hardeo Swami,
Resident of WZ 8B Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, P.O.+P.S. -Kirti Nagar,
District -New Delhi. .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with several
prayers but the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner abandons all the prayers and confines this criminal
miscellaneous petition only to the prayer to quash the order dated
13.01.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Chatra in MCA No. 1290 of 2021 corresponding to NDPS Case No.
57 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Chatra has rejected the prayer of the petitioner
for release of the Alto K10 Vehicle bearing registration no. DL-
3CCA-5814 which was used to transport 200 grams of Opium.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that
consequent upon the seizure of the said vehicle with opium,
police registered Itkhori P.S. Case No. 26 of 2019 and after
completion of investigation submitted charge sheet. The petitioner
with one of the co-accused person faced the trial. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra held the petitioner guilty for
the offence punishable under Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act and
sentenced him to under rigorous imprisonment for two years with
fine of Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner after his conviction served out
the sentence, paid the fine and has been released from Jail
custody.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned trial court in its
judgment or anywhere else has not thought it fit to confiscate the
said vehicle, hence the said vehicle is lying with Itkhori Police
Station. The petitioner after his release from the jail custody made
prayer for release of the said vehicle but the learned Sessions
Judge, Chatra, rejected the same as the Additional Public
Prosecutor did not make it clear that whether the prosecution will
file any appeal for enhancement of sentence of the petitioner.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying
upon the Judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Sandeep Kumar Dangi Vs. The State of Jharkhand, in Cr.M.P.
No. 1201 of 2020, dated 10.08.2021 that as the trial court, even
though the trial has been concluded, has not thought it fit to order
confiscation of the vehicle, hence the vehicle in question ought to
have been released in favour of the petitioner in view of the
undisputed fact that the petitioner is the registered owner of the
said vehicle. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 13.01.2022,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra in
MCA No. 1290 of 2021 corresponding to NDPS Case No. 57 of
2019 being not sustainable in law be quashed and set aside.
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the
fact that in the Judgment or even after that no orders for
confiscation of the vehicle in question has been passed and the
trial has already concluded and the petitioner has already served
out the sentence and as yet, the State has not filed any appeal
though the period of limitation is already over, hence the State has
no serious objection to the prayer for release of the vehicle in
question.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and considering
the fact that the trial of the case has already concluded and the
petitioner has already served out the sentence and has paid the
fine amount and has been released from custody and there is no
material in the record to suggest that any order for confiscation of
the vehicle in question has been passed by any competent court of
law including the trial court nor any appeal is pending in
connection with the said judgment passed by the trial court.
Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra committed a grave illegality
by rejecting the prayer for release of the vehicle.
8. Accordingly, the order dated 13.01.2022, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra in MCA No. 1290 of 2021
corresponding to NDPS Case No. 57 of 2019 being not sustainable
in law is quashed and set aside.
9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra is directed to
release the Alto K10 Vehicle bearing registration no. DL-3CCA-
5814 on the following conditions:-
i. The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond of Rs. 3,00,000/-
with two solvent sureties to the effect that the petitioner shall
produce the vehicle as, and when directed to be produced by the
trial court.
10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 10th January, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
