Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20995 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 293 of 2025 Reserved on: 21.06.2025 Date of Decision: 03.07.2025. Surender ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P.... ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Ms. Ruchika Khachi, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide which, the application filed under Section 497 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for the release of the vehicle was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police party was on a traffic checking duty 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. …2… Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20995 ) on 23.11.2024 at about 11:00 pm. They intercepted a car bearing registration No.HR-21R-1523. Sahil Sharma and Naisha Arora were travelling in the car. The police checked the car in the presence of two independent witnesses and recovered 5.30 grams of heroin from it. The police seized the heroin and arrested the occupants. The driver failed to produce any document of the vehicle and the police seized it. Subsequently, Surender Kumar, the owner of the vehicle (the present petitioner), produced its documents. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court after the completion of the investigation. 3. The petitioner filed an application seeking the release of the vehicle, asserting that he is the owner of the vehicle and he requires it for his domestic purpose. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; hence, he prayed that the vehicle be released. 4. The police filed a status report asserting that the petitioner had handed over the vehicle to Sahil Sharma, who was going to Dharamshala. He was not aware that Sahil Sharma was transporting heroin in the vehicle. …3… Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20995 ) 5. Learned Special Judge-III, Kangra held that 5.30 grams of heroin was recovered from the vehicle. The vehicle was required for investigation and could not be released; hence, the application was ordered to be dismissed. 6. I have heard Ms. Ruchika Khachi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 7. Ms. Ruchika Khachi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the police filed a status report that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that Sahil Sharma would be transporting heroin in his vehicle; therefore, the status report established the non-involvement of the petitioner. The vehicle would lose its value and become junk in case the same were kept in the police station; hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the vehicle be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner. 8. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the vehicle is likely to be confiscated by the State, and the same should not be …4… Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20995 ) released to the petitioner. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10 It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai versus State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 that the vehicles should not be kept in the police station as they are likely to lose their value. The courts should hand over the custody of the vehicle to a proper person. It was observed: “13. Learned senior counsel Mr Dholakia, appearing for the state of Gujarat, further submitted that at present, in the police station premises, a number of vehicles are kept unattended, and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to their owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the court at any point of time. 14. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over of vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons. …5… Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20995 ) 15. In our view, whatever the situation, it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bonds and guarantees, as well as security for the return of the said vehicles if required at any point in time. This can be done pending a hearing of applications for the return of such vehicles. 16. In the case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company, then the insurance company should be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle, which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such an order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and a detailed panchnama should be prepared.” 11. It was laid down by this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sangeeta Bhardwaj 2021 Law Suit (HP) 701 that the vehicle used for the transportation of the narcotics is liable to be confiscated. However, until such proceedings are initiated, the vehicle should not be kept in police custody, and an immediate order should be passed for the release of the vehicle. It was observed: …6… Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20995 ) “15. In para-20 of the aforesaid judgment, which is reproduced hereinabove, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that for Narcotic drugs also procedure under Section 451 Cr. P.C. should be followed by recording evidence and disposal. It has been further held in the aforesaid judgment that no useful purpose would be served by keeping seized vehicles at the police station for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass the appropriate order immediately by taking personal bond and guarantee, as well as security for the return of the said vehicle if required at any point in time. 16 Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled Ashok Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2008 (2) ShimLC 452, while placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment held that once the petitioner undertakes to produce the vehicle before the Court as and when required, prayer for the release of vehicle should be allowed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another, 2001 (10) SCC 88, has held that custody of the vehicle should be entrusted temporarily to its registered owner during the pendency of the trial. Their Lordships have held as under: - "We are not deciding the question as to the title of the vehicle in dispute, nor the correctness of the rival versions regarding the transactions relating to the vehicle. We do not want the vehicle to remain in the compound of the police station, exposed to heat and cold, because the automobile is likely to be lost to all in such a situation. To avert this situation, we are inclined to entrust it temporarily to the appellant, who is the ostensible name-holder in the registration certificate. The custody of the vehicle with the appellant will be on behalf of the court, and this arrangement is only till the stage when the court passes the order regarding disposal of the property on conclusion of the trial". …7… Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20995 ) 12. A similar view was taken by this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Munish Kumar Criminal Revision no.302/2021, decided on 29.12.2020, wherein it was observed: “9. Careful perusal of judgment supra, which is based upon the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other constitutional Courts, reveals that power under S. 451 CrPC while dealing with the issue of seized articles should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously since it would serve various purposes. It has been categorically held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the seized vehicle at the Police Station for a long period, and a vehicle can be ordered to be released by the magistrate by taking personal bond and security to return the vehicle if required at any point in time.” 13. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and is entitled to its custody. It was laid down by this Court in Daljit Singh vs. State Cr. Revision no. 77/02 decided on 12.7.02 that the question of confiscation of the vehicle is independent of its release. The vehicle would become junk in case the same is not released. Adequate conditions can be imposed to ensure the production of the vehicle during the trial if needed. Similarly, it was held in Ashok Kumar vs. State of HP 2008(2) Sim. L.C 452 that where the petitioner was ready and willing to give the undertaking to produce the vehicle …8… Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20995 ) before the Court and not to transfer it, the vehicle should be released in his favour. 14. Thus, in view of the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the release cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated; rather a duty has been cast upon the Court to immediately release the vehicle to the rightful owner until the question of confiscation of the vehicle is decided by the Competent Court. 15. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the vehicle bearing registration no. HR-21R-1523 is ordered to be released to the petitioner along with its documents and ignition key after retaining the photocopies of the documents subject to his furnishing of a Sapurdari bond in the sum of ₹15,00,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of any Magistrate at Kangra undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when called upon to do so, not to charge or encumber the vehicle during the trial and not to alienate the vehicle to any person during the pendency of the trial. The photographs of the vehicle be taken, which shall be …9… Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20995 ) duly attested by the applicant, the accused and the investigating officer. 16. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) 3rd July, 2025 Judge (Saurav pathania)