Surendra Giri vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2978 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No. 522 of 2022


Surendra Giri                                         ....Revisionist

                                  Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                ..... Respondent


Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.



                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to

order dated 05.09.2022, passed in 3rd Miscellaneous

Release Application No.270 of 2022, State of

Uttarakhand Vs. Rajendra Maurya and others, by the

court of Special Judge, NDPS, Rudrapur, District Udham

Singh Nagar. By it, the application for release of a

vehicle bearing registration no. UK06 CB 4683 ("the

vehicle") has been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It appears that the vehicle was involved in

FIR no.715 of 2021, under Sections 8/20/29/60 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,

Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. It

was taken in custody by the police. The revisionist

moved an applicant that he is the registered owner of the

vehicle. Therefore, it may be released in his possession.

This application was rejected by the impugned order.

3. According to the prosecution case, when

the vehicle was intercepted, from it, 86 Kg Ganja was

recovered, which was concealed by making some

improvement in the vehicle. The revisionist was not

arrested at the spot. It was the occupants of the vehicle,

who revealed that it is the revisionist, who is also

involved in this act of transporting-carrying narcotic

drugs and psychotropic substances.

4. Learned State Counsel, on instructions,

would submit that the revisionist did not place his

original documents, which shows that the vehicle may

be released.

5. Undoubtedly, the vehicle may be required

during the course of trial, but, for that reason, vehicle

may not be kept lying at any police station. After all, it is

a property, which has to be used. The police cannot keep

this vehicle in working condition for a longer duration.

6. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the

vehicle may be released to its registered owner, the

revisionist, subject to his furnishing a personal bond

and one surety to the satisfaction of the court

concerned. It shall be subject to the following

conditions:-

(i) The revisionist shall not transfer the ownership of

the vehicle during the pendency of the case,

without prior permission of the court.

(ii) The revisionist shall not make any structural

modification in the vehicle during the pendency of

the case, without prior permission of the court.

(iii) As and when required by the police or the court,

the revisionist shall produce the vehicle at his own

expenses.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 15.09.2022 Ravi Bisht