2025:HHC:33017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.500 of 2025 Reserved on: 09.09.2025 Date of Decision: 23.09.2025 Rohit ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : M/s Yug Singhal and Hitender Verma, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State with HC Rajesh Kumar No. 90 I.O. Palampur, District Kangra, H.P Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the order dated 24.07.2025, passed by learned Special Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh (learned Trial Court), vide which the application filed by the petitioner (applicant before the learned Trial Court) before the learned Trial Court was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. P a g e | 2 2025:HHC:33017 dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police intercepted a vehicle bearing No. HP-01M-5132. The applicant, Rohit, was found driving the vehicle. The police checked the vehicle in the presence of independent witnesses and recovered 1.977 Kgs of cannabis from it. The police seized the cannabis. The police arrested the applicant and the co-accused. The cannabis was sent to SFSL, and as per the report, it was found to be a sample of Charas. 3. The applicant filed an application for the release of the vehicle, asserting that he was required to use the vehicle for daily use. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. 4. The State opposed the application by filing a reply asserting that a financial investigation of the vehicle was pending. The applicant would sell the vehicle or use it for transporting the charas in case of its release. Hence, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. P a g e | 3 2025:HHC:33017 5. Learned Trial Court held that the applicant was the owner of the vehicle and he was using it for the transportation of cannabis. The financial investigation was pending, and the vehicle could not be released. Therefore, the application was dismissed. 6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the applicant has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application. The vehicle is a depreciating asset. The mere pendency of the financial investigation does not justify its indefinite retention. The financial investigation can proceed even after the release of the vehicle. The confiscation of the vehicle can be ordered under Section 60 of the NDPS Act after the conclusion of the trial. Conditions can be imposed to produce the vehicle as and when directed to do so. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 7. The petition is opposed by filing a status report reproducing the contents of the F.I.R. and the result of the investigation. It was asserted that the police were conducting a P a g e | 4 2025:HHC:33017 financial investigation and had written letters to the Registering and Licensing Authority and Tehsildar. The vehicle would be used for the commission of the offence. Hence, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed. 8. I have heard Mr Yug Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 9. Mr Yug Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the vehicle is likely to lose its value with time. Learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Mr Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the vehicle was acquired by the sale of narcotics and is to be forfeited. The financial investigation is continuing, and the release of the vehicle would hamper the financial investigation. Hence he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. P a g e | 5 2025:HHC:33017 11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. The status report does not show that the police had submitted any application to the competent authority under Section 68D of the NDPS Act for dealing with the vehicle, treating it as an illegal acquisition of property. The police only stated that the financial investigation is continuing. Therefore, the provisions of Chapter VA of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. 13. 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 an appropriate bond and a guarantee for the P a g e | 6 2025:HHC:33017 return of the said vehicles if required by the court at any point in 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. 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.” 14. It was submitted that the vehicle is likely to be confiscated by the State and should not be ordered to be released. This submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down by this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sangeeta Bhardwaj P a g e | 7 2025:HHC:33017 2021 Law Suit (HP) 701 that the vehicle used for the transportation of 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: “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, the 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, the prayer for the release of the 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, P a g e | 8 2025:HHC:33017 exposed to heat and cold, because the automobile is likely to be lost 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". 15. 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.” 16. 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. 77/2002 decided on 12.7.2002 that the question of confiscation of the vehicle is independent of its release. The vehicle would P a g e | 9 2025:HHC:33017 become junk if it were 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, where the petitioner was ready and willing to give the undertaking to produce the vehicle before the court and not to transfer the same, the vehicle should be released in his favour. 17. Thus, the release cannot be denied to the applicant 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. 18. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the vehicle bearing registration no. HP01M-5132 is ordered to be released to the petitioner along with its documents and ignition key after retaining the photocopies of the documents subject to furnishing of a Sapurdari bond in the sum of ₹15,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court undertaking therein to produce the vehicle as and when called upon to do so, not to P a g e | 10 2025:HHC:33017 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 duly attested by petitioner and the Investigating Officer. 19. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 23rd September, 2025 (ravinder)