Sunita Devi vs The State Of Bihar
2025 Latest Caselaw 2993 Patna

Patna High Court

Sunita Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 3 April, 2025

Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha

Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64805 of 2024
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-238 Year-2024 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia
     ======================================================
     Sunita Devi wife of Late Ashok Singh Village- Bhaskar Nagar, Ward No 07,
     PO- Polytechnic PS- K. Hat, Distt- Purnea

                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                          Versus
1.   The State of Bihar
2.   Rajeshwar Ram, S/o Bhagwan Ram Posted as sub Inspector, K.Hat P.S., P.S.
     - K. Hat, Distt.- Purnea. Permanent Address R/o Village- Amrunha, P.S.-
     Chouri, Distt.- Bhojpur, Bihar

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
     For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, Adv.
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 03-04-2025

                       Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

      learned A.P.P. for the State.

                       2. The present quashing petition has been filed

      on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated

      02.07.2024

as passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge IV th,

Purnea in connection with K. Hat P.S. Case No. 238 of 2024

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (C),

21(a)and 25 of the NDPS Act, where petition of petitioner as

to release his Scooty bearing registration no. BR11BB1257

and mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 860153069758957 and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64805 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025

860153069258940 was rejected by learned Addl. Sessions

Judge IV th, Purnea.

3. At the outset, in view of disputed report regarding

ownership of mobile, as it was reported by Superintendent of

Police, Purnea through letter no. 31 dated 18.01.2025 that

same is registered in the name of Shivam Kumar Son of

Ashok Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did

not press his prayer for release of mobile phone, for the

present. Hence, petition is limited with dealing of release of

Scooty bearing registration no. BR11BB1257.

4. The brief facts of this case is that one Red Black

Colour Scooty bearing Reg. No. BR11BB1257 which belongs

to this petitioner found involved in carrying 4.75 gram

"Smack" and so from apprehended accused who was driving

Scooty, one VIVO Company Golden color mobile, a black

Knife from waist, ATM card of UCO Bank was recovered. The

"Smack" is a prohibited drug in view of NDPS Act 1985.

5. For the aforesaid occurrence, on the basis of a

written complaint, F.I.R. bearing K. Hat P.S. Case No. 238 of

2024 was registered under section 21/22 of the NDPS Act. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64805 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025

6. A petition for release of aforesaid Scooty was

filed before learned Addl. Sessions Judge IV th, Purnea, by

petitioner, which was rejected on 02.07.2024 by considering

the provision of Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, as the vehicle

in issue was used for carrying contraband i.e. Smack and thus

same is subject to confiscation.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submitted that confiscation of vehicle in issue is yet

to be made and keeping vehicle in police station shall not

serve any judicial purpose, where petitioner is ready to

produce the same before the Trial Court as and when

directed, upon release against adequate sureties as directed

by the Court.

8. It is further submitted that in view of fact, as

petitioner not appears connected in any manner with

recovered "Smack" his vehicle cannot be confiscated. In

support of his submission learned counsel relied upon the the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajit

Dey Vs. The State of Assam as reported in 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 40.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64805 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025

9. In this context, learned counsel also relied

upon the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available

through Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat

as reported in (2002)10 SCC 283.

10. It is further submitted that name of petitioner

has been transpired in this case being registered owner of the

Scooty in issue.

11. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the

quashing petition, submitted that petitioner is the registered

owner of Scooty bearing Reg. No. BR11BB1257 and the same

has been kept in the premises of K. Hat Police Station, where

confiscation is yet to be made.

12. At this stage, it would further be apposite to

reproduce the para nos. 21, 22, 23 and 26 of the Bishwajit

Dey Case (supra), which reads as under:-

21. Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Further, even where the Court is of the view that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64805 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025

vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person.

22. This Court is further of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.

23. In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr. P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim.

However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case.

26. If the respondent-State's interpretation is accepted, then in a case where an accused is arrested carrying heroin in a private plane or a private bus or a private ship without the knowledge and consent of the management and staff of the private plan or bus or ship, the plane/bus/ship would have to be seized till the trial is over!

13. It would also be apposite to reproduce the

para no. 21 of the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Case

(supra), which reads as under:-

"21. However, these powers are to be exercised by the Magistrate concerned. We hope and trust that the Magistrate concerned would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 CrPC are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64805 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025

fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the High Court concerned in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly."

14. Consequently, the present application stands

allowed with directions to the trial Court to release the Vehicle

in question in the interim on superdari in favor of petitioner/

rightful owner after preparing a video and still photographs of

the vehicle i.e., Scooty bearing registration No. BR11BB1257

after obtaining all information/documents necessary for

identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by

the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by

signing the same. Further, the petitioner shall not sell or part

with the ownership of the Vehicle till conclusion of the trial

and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial court that she

shall surrender the Vehicle within one week of being so

directed and/or pay the value of the Vehicle (determined

according to Income Tax law on the date of its release), if so

ultimately directed by the Court.

15. Considering the aforesaid, the order dated

02.07.2024 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge IV th, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64805 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025

Purnea in connection with K. Hat P.S. Case No. 238 of 2024

is hereby quashed and set aside.

16. Accordingly the seized Scooty with aforesaid

condition as discussed in para-14 (supra) be released in

favour of petitioner/rightful owner on furnishing proper

sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions

Judge IV th, Purnea in connection with K. Hat P.S. Case No.

238 of 2024.

17. The application stands allowed.

18. Let a coy of this judgment be communicated to

the learned Trial Court forthwith.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

Sudha/-

AFR/NAFR                         NAFR
CAV DATE                          NA
Uploading Date                04.04.2025
Transmission Date             04.04.2025