Nagendra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to order dated 12.04.2024, passed in Miscellaneous Release Application No.130 of 2024, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Blaka Singh, by the court of Special Judge, NDPS Act, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the application filed by the revisionist for release of a vehicle bearing registration no. UP22 AT 4822 (“the vehicle”) has been rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is the registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle has not been confiscated. It is a case property. Therefore, the vehicle may be released in his favour.

Learned State Counsel would submit that subject to some conditions, the vehicle may be released in favour of the revisionist.

The record reveals that the vehicle was taken into custody by police when it was found carrying poppy straw as well as opium. It is definitely a case property. But, no purpose would be served if the vehicle is kept at the police station. It may be damaged or deteriorated.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the vehicle ought to have been released in favour of its registered owner subject to certain conditions. The impugned order itself reveals that the revisionist is the registered owner of the vehicle.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that the revision deserves to be allowed.

The revision is allowed.

The order dated 12.04.2024, passed in the case, is set aside.

Let the vehicle, bearing registration no. UP22 AT 4822, which has been taken into custody by the police in FIR No. 66 of 2024, under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, be released in favour of the revisionist 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.