Uttarakhand High Court
September vs State Of Uttarakhand on 1 September, 2025
2025:UHC:7744
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 759 of 2025
01 September, 2025
Sapna --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Chauhan, learned D.A.G. assisted by Mr. B. C. Joshi,
learned A.G.A. and Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the
State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner for
quashing the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 passed
by learned In-charge Special Judge (NDPS Act)/1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Vehicle Release
Application No.16 of 2025, titled as "Sapna vs. State" and
further to direct the learned In-charge Special Judge
(NDPS Act)/1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital to
forthwith release the vehicle being Registration No. U.K.
06-B.G. 9617 in favour of the petitioner.
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 759 of 2025 - Sapna v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7744
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Sub
Inspector namely Sunil Dhanik got lodged an F.I.R on
23.12.2024 against Nempal Yadav and Digvijay Singh,
being F.I.R No.383 of 2024 for the offence punishable
under Section 8/20/60 of NDPS Act, P.S. Ramnagar,
District Nainital alleging therein that on 23.12.2024, the
informant alongwith other police personnel was on
routine duty for maintaining law and order when they
checking the vehicle at Thari Gaon Halduwa then after
some time a four wheeler vehicle Tata Tiago bearing No.
U.K. 06-B.G. 9617, in which two persons were boarded
and the police team indicated the persons to stop the
vehicle and also told for searching of vehicle and in the
tank of vehicle two plastic bags were found and then the
police team interrogated the persons, who disclosed their
name and told that they have carrying illegal contraband
i.e. Ganja and at Pirumadara for the purpose of selling
the same they cam over and thereafter with the help of
electronic weighing machine the said contraband was
found 17.14 kg (i.e. 10.05 kg from the possession of the
present petitioner and 7.09 kg from the possession of the
co-accused) and thereafter, accordingly, the petitioner
and co-accused persons were arrested at about 04:05
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 759 of 2025 - Sapna v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7744
hours and recovery memo was prepared at the spot and
police has also seized the vehicle under Section 60 of
NDPS Act.
3. The petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle
Tata Tiago having registration no. U.K. 06-B.G. 9617 and
said vehicle was duly registered in the name of the
petitioner and accused person Digvijay who is the driver
of the aforesaid vehicle for some work.
4. The falsity of the instant FIR is prove from the
fact that the petitioner and co-accused were arrested by
the police at about 04:05 hours, whereas the FIR in
question has been lodged about 06:10 hours, this vital
delay of about 2:05 hours in lodging of the FIR has not
satisfactorily been explained by the prosecution, whereas
the distance of police station from the place of incident is
hardly 6 km, this clearly shows that the police has falsely
implicated the present petitioner and co-accused in the
instant case crime.
5. The bare reading of the FIR cum recovery
memo also clearly reveals that the alleged contraband of
Ganja is shown to be recovered from the possession of
the petitioner is 10.05 kg, which is below the commercial
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 759 of 2025 - Sapna v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7744
quantity. The petitioner is the registered owner of the
vehicle, which was intercepted and seized in connection
with the aforesaid crime registered against the petitioner
under NDPS Act and is now in custody of police.
6. The accused in the aforesaid FIR, therefore,
moved an application seeking his release on bail before
the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, which
was granted, thereafter, the petitioner filed an application
for release of the said vehicle, but learned court below
vide order dated 11.03.2024 dismissed the said
application of the petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner is the sister of named accused person Digvijay
Singh and it might have been possibility that Digvijay
Singh has used the vehicle in commission of crime after
taking consent from the petitioner, the vehicle ought to
have been released in custody of its registered owner,
therefore, the order dated 11.03.2025 deserves and is
liable to be set-aside.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is contended by learned counsel for the
Applicant that the vehicle has been lying unattended at
the police station compound and the same is exposed to
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 759 of 2025 - Sapna v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7744
the vagaries of the weather and miscreants, till the
conclusion of trial, it will result into vehicle get damaged
and reduce its value substantially which will not benefit
the state or the owner. There is no use of keeping vehicle
there in police station and the said vehicle be released in
her favour.
9. In support of his contention, the learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
"Bishwajit Dey vs. The State of Assam" (Criminal
Appeal No.87 of 2025) delivered on 07.01.2025.
10. Per contra, learned State counsel poses his
formal objection in this regard.
11. I have gone through the judgment and order
relied upon by learned counsel for the Applicant rendered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court along with provisions of
Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC.
12. For ready reference, para nos.22 and 23 of
'Bishwajit Dey' (supra) are quoted hereinbelow:-
"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
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 759 of 2025 - Sapna v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7744
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."
The Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the appeal
with a direction to the trial court to release the vehicle in
question in the interim supurdagi.
13. Thus, the impugned order dated 11.03.2025
passed by learned In-charge Special Judge (NDPS
Act)/1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital cannot
sustain and deserves to be quashed and is accordingly
quashed.
14. Thus the writ petition is allowed. The vehicle
in-question is directed to be released in favour of the
petitioner after executing personal bond of `1,00,000/-
and one local sureties, each of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned along with an
undertaking that ownership of the vehicle would not be
altered, sold or transfer, in any manner, whatsoever,
without the permission of the court and she shall
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 759 of 2025 - Sapna v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7744
produce the vehicle either before the court concerned or
before such other Authority as the Court may direct.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
01.09.2025
Akash
AKASH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48ef73518c148d14
0566ab1e26f9cbe61d, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee49224c891823fc6a0
334628b21e516047ed4f22f7, cn=AKASH
Date: 2025.09.01 17:52:06 +05'30'
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 759 of 2025 - Sapna v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
