Karnataka High Court

Intelligence Officer vs Sala Sai Yashwanth Reddy on 14 February, 2025

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                         -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:6793
                                                CRL.P No. 8425 of 2022




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
                                                                    ®
                                      BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8425 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) /
                                 528(BNSS))
               BETWEEN:

               INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
               NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU,
               BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT,
               NO.7/1-2, PRIYANK VILLAS,
               RAMANNA GARDEN, BAGLUR MAIN ROAD,
               KATTIGENAHALLI, YELAHANKA,
               BANGALORE-560 063.
               REPRESENTED BY KAMLESH KUMAR
                                                          ...PETITIONER
               (BY MS. MAHESHWARI D.M., ADVOCATE FOR
               SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

               AND:

               SALA SAI YASHWANTH REDDY
Digitally      S/O LATE SRI. SALA GOVIND REDDY,
signed by      AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
LAKSHMI T
Location:
               RESIDING AT 6-169, CHANDRAPALEM,
High Court     OPP. DURGA THEATRE, MADHURAWADA,
of Karnataka
               VISHAKAPATNAM (RURAL), VISHAKAPATNAM,
               ANDHRA PRADESH-530 048.
                                                        ...RESPONDENT
               (BY MS. SWATHI R BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
               SRI. R. PRASANNA RAO, ADVOCATE)

                    THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
               ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2022 PASSED BY THE
               XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
               AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES, BENGALURU
               IN  SPL.C.C.NO.896/2022   (NCB   F.NO.48/1/22/2021/BZU)
               (ANNEXURE-A) AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
                             -2-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:6793
                                     CRL.P No. 8425 of 2022




RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 451 READ WITH 457 OF CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 SEEKING RELEASE OF
VEHICLE i.e., FOUR WHEELER MARUTI SWIFT CAR, VEHICLE
BEARING NO.AP-37-DS-2191 (ANNEXURE-D).

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ


                        ORAL ORDER

The order passed by the learned Special Judge

granting interim custody of the vehicle/Maruthi Swift car

bearing registration No.AP 37 DS 2191 to the respondent

is challenged in this petition by the petitioner/complainant

namely Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau,

Bangalore Zonal Unit.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is two fold. Firstly, it is contended that the

learned Special Judge except stating that the Special Court

is conferred with the power/jurisdiction to consider the

application for the interim custody of conveyance/vehicle

under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. in cases arising out

NC: 2025:KHC:6793

of provisions of NDPS Act, has not considered the case on

merits. Secondly, it is contended that the learned Special

Judge has failed to take into consideration that a vehicle

seized in case of this nature is required for identification

and if the vehicle is released, there is likelihood of the

vehicle being not produced before the Court at the

relevant time.

3. Learned counsel Ms.Maheshwari D.M.,

appearing for the petitioner has contended that in the

vehicle in question, the accused were carrying contraband

i.e., 21 grams of MDMA, methamphetamine weighing 40

gms and methaqualone weighing 3 grams. She contended

that the accused have used the vehicle to carry obnoxious

drug and the MDMA which was seized in this case is

commercial quantity. Drawing the attention of the Court

to the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of

Union of India Through C.R.P.F. 61 B.N. v. Union of

India Through Central Excise Department (2008 SCC

online Pat 392), she contended that Section 60 of the

NC: 2025:KHC:6793

NDPS Act provides for confiscation of seized materials

including Narcotic Drugs Substance, apparatus, utensils

etc., used in commission of offence. Section 63 lays down

procedure for confiscation of seized material and

therefore, in the present case the vehicle in question in

which the accused was carrying commercial quantity of

narcotic drugs is liable to be confiscated. She contended

that the allegations are serious in nature and therefore,

the Special Judge was not justified in releasing the vehicle

to the interim custody of the respondent. She has relied

on para-9 of the above referred judgment, which reads as

under:

"9. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the opposite party reported in 2005 SCC does not lay down any law. However, it goes to show that in cases under N.D.P.S. Act release of vehicle is not a matter of routine. The Apex Court in above decision has set aside the order of High Court regarding release of vehicle and directed the respondent to surrender the vehicle. In short order, the Apex Court in paragraph-3 has observed as follows:-

NC: 2025:KHC:6793

"3. By the impugned order, the High Court has directed for release of the vehicle during trial of the accused for violation of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act). In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court was not justified in releasing the vehicle."

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent has contended that the applicant/respondent

was not arraigned as an accused in this case. Admittedly,

he is the registered owner of the vehicle and as per

prosecution material, it was accused No.1 who borrowed

the said vehicle and therefore, he was totally unaware of

the fact that the said vehicle was being used to carry any

drug much less the narcotic drugs as alleged. She

contended that the Special Court has the power to release

the vehicle and after considering the entire facts and

circumstances, the learned Special Judge was pleased to

pass the order releasing the vehicle to the interim custody

of respondent. She submitted that the respondent will

NC: 2025:KHC:6793

strictly abide the conditions imposed and now, in view of

the stay order granted by this Court, the vehicle is

exposed to sunlight and rain since 22.10.2021 and if the

vehicle is not released pending disposal of trial, it will

become worthless.

5. Learned counsel Ms. Swathi R. Bhat, appearing

for respondent has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Bishwajit Dey v.The State of Assam reported

in (2025) 1 SCR 281 in support of her contention.

6. The NCB has registered a case against

5 persons for offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w

22(a), (b), (c), 25, 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act

alleging that they were carrying 21 grams of MDMA, 40

grams of methamphetamine and 3 grams of methaqualone

in the said car on 22.10.2021. The accused were arrested

and the vehicle in question i.e., Maruthi Swift Car bearing

registration No.AP-37-DS-2191 as well as the contraband

were seized under a mahazar in the presence of panchas.

NC: 2025:KHC:6793

7. The learned Special Judge, vide order dated

1.6.2022 was pleased to allow the application filed by the

applicant/registered owner of Maruthi Swift Car on

conditions, which are as under:

1. The applicant shall not sell, alienate, change the parts, colour of the vehicle till the disposal of the case.

2. It shall produce the vehicle whenever require for trial.

3. IO., shall take the photograph at the time of release of vehicle and shall produce the same to the court.

8. It is not disputed that the Special Court was

conferred with the power/jurisdiction to consider the

application for interim custody of vehicle in cases arising

out of the provisions of the NDPS Act. In the case on

hand, admittedly, the petitioner was not among the

accused and he was not present when the vehicle was

intercepted by the NCB officials. The defence taken by

the respondent during interrogation was that accused No.1

NC: 2025:KHC:6793

requested to lend his car as his mother needed to go for

medical treatment at Vijayawada and keeping in mind the

medical emergency, he lent the car to the said accused.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey

(supra) has dealt with the need to release the vehicle to

the interim custody by referring to various other

judgments pronounced by it. It is useful to refer to two of

the judgments cited by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

aforementioned decision, at paras-10 and 11 of the said

judgment, which are extracted hereunder:

"10. He submitted that this Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai V. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 has held, "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."

NC: 2025:KHC:6793

11. He pointed out that the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Bhola Singh @ Ayush Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Criminal Misc. No. 40912/2016, has held that "...... As far as vehicle is concerned, there was no reason to reject the application of the petitioner for its release to interim custody of the applicant claiming to be bona fide owner of the vehicle subject to certain conditions to ensure production of the vehicle to the court as and when required during pendency of the trail or confiscation proceeding.........."

10. In the decision referred by the learned counsel

for the petitioner, it was a case wherein certain CRPF

personnel in garb of uniform used department's vehicles

for smuggling of contraband ganja in huge quantity. In

that context, the Court has held that the offence

committed is serious in nature and therefore, release of

the vehicle would not be proper.

11. Considering the facts of the present case, this

Court finds that there is no illegality in the order passed by

the learned Special Judge in releasing the vehicle to the

interim custody of respondent/registered owner of the car.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6793

The learned Special Judge has imposed conditions

including that the applicant shall not sell, alienate, change

the parts, colour of the vehicle till the disposal of the case;

to produce the vehicle whenever required for trial.

Further, the I.O. has been directed to take photograph at

the time of release of vehicle and produce the same to the

Court. The respondent has undertaken to comply with the

above conditions strictly. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

i. Petition is dismissed.

ii. The order dated 1.6.2022 passed by the XXXIII

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge

for NDPS Cases at Bangalore in Spl.CC No.896/2022,

releasing the vehicle/Maruthi Swift Car bearing registration

No. AP 37 DS 2191 to the interim custody of the

respondent is confirmed.