Vinay Dwivedi vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 20.7.2017 passed by the Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act (henceforth 'the Act'), Jagdalpur in Special Case No.5 of 2015 rejecting the application moved by the present Applicant for release of

his vehicle on supurdnama.

The Applicant is the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.UP 93 E 9962 which was seized by Police Station Bodhghat on 13.6.2015 in

connection with Crime No.159 of 2015 registered for offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Act. The vehicle was seized on the allegation that

the vehicle was used by the accused persons for running away from the spot.

As per the prosecution story, on 10.6.2015, on receiving secret information from an informant, the police seized a vehicle bearing registration

No.MP 17 TA 1807 in parked condition. 145.900 Kgs. of contraband Ganja, which was kept in the vehicle No.MP 17 TA 1807, was seized from the

possession of accused Sachin Kumar Verma. An application was preferred by the present Applicant for release of the vehicle No.UP 93 E 9962 on

supurdnama, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.7.2017. Hence, this revision.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is not the accused in the offence in question. No contraband Ganja was

seized from the vehicle No.UP 93 E 9962. He further submits that the vehicle No.MP 17 TA 1807 from which Ganja was seized has already been

released on supurdnama vide order dated 4.11.2016 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.831 of 2016. He further submits that the Applicant is

the registered owner of the vehicle No.UP 93 E 9962. The vehicle No.UP 93 E 9962 was being used for transportation purposes. The vehicle was not

directly involved in any offence. The vehicle is kept idle for a period of about 2 years and no fruitful purpose would be served if the vehicle remains

idle in the custody of the police. The vehicle is exposed to the extreme weather conditions. If the vehicle is still kept idle, it would become unusable

after sometime. No proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle is pending. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the vehicle No.UP 93 E 9962 may be

released in favour of the Applicant on supurdnama.

Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Respondent supports the impugned order. He submits that the accused had used the vehicle

No.UP 93 E 9962 to run away from the place of incident. The vehicle is involved in the offence in question. Therefore, the application of the

Applicant for release of the said vehicle on supurdnama has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that no Ganja was seized from the vehicle No.UP 93 E 9962, the said vehicle is

kept idle for about 2 years, no proceeding relating to confiscation of the vehicle is pending and value of the vehicle may be depreciated on its

remaining kept unused for long, I am inclined to allow the present revision and release the vehicle on supurdnama.

Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The vehicle bearing registration No.UP 93 E 9962 be released in favour of the Applicant on a supurdnama on

furnishing a surety in the sum of Rupees Five Lakhs to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court with the following conditions that during pendency

of the trialâ€

(i) no third party transfer of the vehicle shall be done by the Applicant,

(ii) paint and look/design of the vehicle shall not be changed and

(iii) whenever order for submission of the vehicle is issued, the same shall be complied with on time.